Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

School Building Costs

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many education authorities in Wales have complained to him that their school building programme is being held up because of present cost limits.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): Several local education authorities have reported difficulties in obtaining suitable tenders in respect of the 1972–73 starts programme. However, only four authorities had projects which were delayed beyond 31st March 1973 and a place is available for these in the current programme.

Sir A. Meyer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to put the matter into perspective and make it clear that the very welcome expansion in the provision of school places which has taken place under the present Government is not being held up by such difficulties as these?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. I certainly welcome the opportunity. The school building programme for 1972–73 was the largest ever, amounting to over £20 million. It included 98 major projects, but only six failed to start because of difficulties concerning tenders.

Mr. McBride: Does the reason adduced in the Question form any part of the reason for the alleged hold-up in the completion of the Hafod school in Swansea? Will the Secretary of State

give every assistance to Swansea City Council in having the school completed as soon as possible so that my constituents' children may have the benefit of education there?

Mr. Thomas: The only hold-up to a school in Swansea as a result of cost limits was to the Olchfa secondary school extensions. As I have said, a place is available for them in the current programme. Cost limits have been raised again recently.

Mr. Alec Jones: While putting the matter in perspective, will the Secretary of State give details of the schools and the number of pupils affected in the four schemes that were postponed?

Mr. Thomas: I can certainly give details. Perhaps I may write to the hon. Gentleman.

Trunk Roads (Finance)

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the effects of the Chancellor's public expenditure cuts in the trunk roads programme for Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: It may be necessary to slow down the preparation of a few schemes, but the overall effect on my trunk roads programme in 1974–75 should be relatively small.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State confirm or otherwise what a Welsh Office spokesman is quoted as having said, that the whole road programme, including the M4 and the A470 from Cardiff to Merthyr, would be reviewed and that specific economies would be submitted? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state positively that the commitment to complete the M4 by the end of 1976 still stands, and that there will be no financial or public expenditure argument against carrying on with the completion of the Cardiff-Merthyr trunk road scheme?

Mr. Thomas: I am very happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that the construction of the M4 will not be affected by the measures. The preparation of the remaining stages of the Cardiff-Merthyr trunk road will not be affected and is going ahead as quickly as possible.

Mr. Gower: As the prosperity of Welsh industry is particularly dependent on the improvement of the road system, will my right hon. and learned Friend try to ensure that as far as possible any cuts are designed so as not to affect the industrial parts of Wales?

Mr. Thomas: Obviously, I must find places to make some cuts in my programme for 1974–75. I expect that there will be a cut of about £1 million from the trunk roads programme. The total cuts will be about £2½ million out of a programme of well over £70 million.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the cuts could he very serious? Can he be more specific as to the major roads that will be affected by them? Is he aware, for example, of the urgent need to improve the A55 in North Wales? Are this important road and future development plans to be affected by these serious cuts?

Mr. Thomas: It is too early to say what schemes will be affected, but I do not expect that there will be any effect on schemes that have been stated to be priority schemes.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, unlike the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who believes that no new motorways should be started until those under construction are completed, he regards a continuing motorway programme as being of high priority and that he will press on with the M4?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Secretary of State will remember that last December, in their White Paper on Public Expenditure, the Government stated the expenditure on roads in Wales in 1974–75 to be £71·2 million. How soon can he tell us how near to that figure, or how far from it, expenditure in that year is expected to be?

Mr. Thomas: The£71·2 million is the proposed expenditure, and there will be a reduction during that year of £2½ million.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what cuts in public expenditure are to be made in Wales in each of the years 1973–74 and 1974–75 as a result of the proposed cuts announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21st May.

Mr. Alec Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cut in public expenditure in Wales for the current year and the year 1974–75.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I refer the hon. Members to my reply of 25th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).—[Vol. 857, c. 217–218.]

Mr. Roderick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the need for the public expenditure cuts?

Mr. Thomas: The need for the cuts was adequately explained to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us some idea of the effect that the cuts will have on locally determined schemes which bear so heavily on the quality of life of our community? Secondly, will he give us some assurance that they will in no way affect the aid—for example, accommodation and equipment—which is provided for disabled people?

Mr. Thomas: Quite a large part of the saving of £7½ million will be borne by miscellaneous local services. The hon. Gentleman will know that in recent years there has been a considerable increase in expenditure. There has been an increase from £63 million in 1971–72 to a projected £75 million in 1975–76 and £79 million in 1976–77. That will be partly in the locally determined sector but will include some rephasing of expenditure which will fall within other sectors not immediately related to housing.

Sir A. Meyer: Are not the daily announcements of new jobs and the expansion of Welsh firms sufficient justification for the Government's economic policy and for the cuts necessary to enable that policy to continue?

Mr. Thomas: Yes.

Employment (Shotton)

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many new jobs for men were created in the Shotton exchange area in 1972 and to date this year, respectively.

Mr. Peter Thomas: In 1972, projects approved in the Shotton travel-to-work area promised about 360 male jobs; no firm figures are as yet available for 1973.

Mr. Jones: That is alarmingly minute. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that to attract more jobs into East Flintshire it will be necessary to improve road communications? In that area there are frustrating traffic jams almost every day. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that residents, workers and tourists are suffering from maddening delays at Queen's Ferry? Will he give a firm guarantee that no economy axe will fall upon the project at the Queen's Ferry roundabout? Surely he agrees that that is the root of Deeside's traffic jam problems.

Mr. Thomas: I fully accept the importance of good road communications if jobs are to be attracted. I have no doubt that that matter will feature in the task force report which the hon. Gentleman knows is in process of being finalised. I am sure he will welcome what is being done already in Flintshire. There is a major improvement of the A550 at Drome Corner, which is in the firm programme. In England the recent proposals to extend the M56 westwards will benefit North-East Wales. The hon. Gentleman will know that consulting engineers are now carrying out a feasibility study for an improvement scheme at the Queen's Ferry roundabout. We must await the result of that study.

Aberdulais—Glynneath Trunk Road

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when the draft orders under Sections 7 and 9 of the Highways Act 1959 relating to the Aberdulais-Glynneath section of the new trunk road between Hirwaun and Llandarcy are likely to be published.

Mr. Peter Thomas: In the summer of 1974.

Mr. Coleman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer. Is he aware that the construction of this road will considerably ameliorate the difficulties being experienced in the village of Resolven because of the passage of heavy vehicles used for industrial purposes?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, I understand the importance of the road. The preparation of the scheme is proceeding as quickly as possible.

Quarries (Chemical Waste)

Mr John: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the intentions of his office towards the investigation of the environmental position at Maendy and Brofiscun quarries.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have had this matter under review for a considerable time. A continuing programme of invesgation and monitoring has been carried out. On the basis on an extensive series of tests, the best advice available to me is that there is no evidence to suggest any immediate public health hazard from the situation at these quarries. There is no danger of contamination of public water supplies. As regards possible contamination of the food chain I am also advised that the evidence does not indicate any immediate hazards. Only this morning I have received the results of tests carried out last Friday of milk from four Maendy farms. The public analyst's department of Glamorgan County Council has reported that these milk samples are free from polychlorinated biphenyls. I recognise that there is public concern in this matter and investigations will continue into all aspects of it.
In the light of the evidence, I stand ready to take whatever action is appropriate. I will ensure that the public is kept fully informed of the progress of these continuing investigations.
With permission, I will circulate fuller details of this answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. John: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the public are by now thoroughly dissatisfied not only with the results of the tests carried out by the Welsh Office but with the methods used by the Welsh Office in obtaining the


results? Does he not realise that what is called for is a speedy, complete and integrated investigation of the two tips involved by Government Departments, including the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer falls a long way short of such an integrated investigation.
Is the Secretary of State further aware that what the local populace demands is urgent action following such an investigation? Has he found evidence of TOCP from the tip, and, if so, in what quantities? I urge him that any special action which is required to make these tips safe for the locality should be taken by the Welsh Office and that any question of who is responsible for taking such action should be considered only after the public is protected. The Welsh Office has been too complacent. It is time that the situation was remedied.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I deny emphatically that the Welsh Office has been complacent. Tipping stopped in these two quarries in 1970. There had been uncontrolled tipping, apart from the planning agreement, for five years. Since then my office has been concerned to ensure that there is no danger to public health.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an integrated investigation. That is precisely what is taking place. Monitoring is continuing. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and the public for which he considers he speaks should look at the details of my answer before exaggerated statements are made. I understand that there is public concern about these matters. However, we must take care not to give currency to exaggerated reports of danger to public health. I have received expert advice from medical toxicologists, chemists and engineers within the Government service and I am satisfied that there is no immediate danger to public health. I need hardly tell the House that if there were any risk of that sort I should take immediate action.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, according to information given to me by several local authorities, one of the major problems is the treatment and disposal of industrial

and domestic waste? As that problem is related closely to the Question, may I ask whether it would not be opportune to have a departmental or some other form of inquiry into the whole problem?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not think that the situation calls for an inquiry at the moment in respect of these two quarries. Monitoring is continuing. There is a full interdepartmental investigation. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that since we have been in office we have passed an Act which deals with the problem he has mentioned.

Mr. George Thomas: I acknowledge that the Secretary of State must accept the advice of his experts. I recall, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has asked at least 12 Questions about the quarries over a period of two years. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the public unease in the community, due to the publicity given to the presence of poisons, is such that he should take immediate steps to seal off the quarry? We should not gamble in any way with a possible future risk. We have received a very grave warning. A terrible responsibility would be placed on the right hon. and learned Gentleman if in future it was discovered that people had suffered as a result of toxic substances.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and of course a responsibility rests on me. I hope the House will accept that, if I felt that there was a danger to public health, I would not hesitate to take such action as lies within my means. But the right hon. Gentleman knows—I have had a lot of correspondence with his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John)—that the fear was about PCB. I have given the House the results of tests which indicate that some of the fears which have been expressed are without foundation. These tests and investigations will continue.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned TOCP, which has been mentioned in the newspapers. Scares have been started. We were told about this by a consultant, who is engaged in litigation, only on Friday. Investigations took place immediately. We will continue with these investigations


and the full services of the Government Analyst and of all Departments will be involved.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: When will the investigations to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred be concluded? In order to allay the considerable public concern which exists in Pontypridd and, indeed, throughout Wales about this matter, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to publish a report of these investigations so that we may debate the matter in full in due course?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, Sir. I am perfectly happy that the results of all the investigations should be made public. I am happy to give full information to any right hon. or hon. Member. I will consider whether a report should be published.

Following is the information:
My Department has had the situation at these quarries, where waste, including chemical waste, was tipped from 1965 to 1970, under close review with particular reference to the possible presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in water draining from the quarries.
My Department has arranged for the laboratory of the Government Chemist to analyse water samples from the immediate vicinity of the quarries for PCBs and, in conjunction with the Glamorgan River Authority, for 20 other possible chemical contaminants. Something in the region of 400 determinations have been made and for most chemicals the levels were below the limits of detection. PCBs were found to be present but at levels which I am advised were toxicologically negligible.
At the request of my Department the staff of the Water Pollution Research Laboratory have visited the quarries and have taken water samples and analysed them for PCBs as well as for other chemicals. The results for PCBs show extremely low levels. Staff of the WPRL and of the Water Resources Board will collect further water samples and sediment, soil and herbage over a wide area surrounding the quarries.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is undertaking sampling to determine possible contamination of the food chain in the light of the results obtained by the laboratory of the Government Chemist, the Glamorgan River Authority and WPRL. Milk is being sampled on one farm in each of the areas of the two quarries concerned and on another farm unconnected with them to act as a control. Analyses of these samples for PCBs and other chemicals will be undertaken by the laboratory of the Government Chemist and routine tests of milk quality for human consumption will also be undertaken by the Ministry's own laboratory. Further sampling

and analysis of milk and animal tissue will be undertaken if the initial milk test shows this to be necessary.
The Glamorgan River Authority, the authority with statutory responsibility for water quality, has been discussing with the firm responsible for the tipping various possible methods of preventing contaminants leaching out of the quarries. The Glamorgan County Council as planning authority has also been involved in discussions with the firm.
The quarries contain very large quantities of chemical waste. As with all tips of waste materials, irrespective of whether they contain normal waste or chemical waste, parents would be advised to take normal precautions to keep their children away. Farmers have been advised to fence off their stock from water which may be contaminated. As long as normal common sense precautions are taken and unless some new factors come to light, I do not consider the public to be at risk.
There was and is no danger of contamination of public water supplies, since none are derived from the streams in the areas surrounding the quarries. As regards possible contamination of the food chain, I am advised that the available evidence does not suggest that there is any immediate public health hazard. I will, however, keep the position under the closest review and will ensure that quick and effective action is taken if new evidence calls for it. I will also ensure that the public are kept informed.

Industrial and Social Infrastructure

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he has made for future improvements to the industrial and social infrastructure of Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The continuing aim of Government policies is to bring about further improvements in the industrial and social infrastructure of Wales. Expenditure on this is estimated to rise to about £480 million in 1974–75 as compared with £430 million in 1971–72.

Mr. Kinnock: May I test the right hon. and learned Gentleman's memory and his credibility? Does he recall that, immediately after the General Election, when the Government were bringing Wales to the verge of ruin by abandoning realistic regional development policies which they have since restored, he and his colleagues put a great deal of emphasis on the value of infrastructural improvement? What has persuaded the right hon. and learned Gentleman since that we do not need £7½ million worth of additional infrastructural improvements, although he has given figures showing that the Government are


willing to increase enormously the amount of money they spend to keep the pot boiling in Wales? Against the background of abandoning the regional employment premium as well, the two things together deal an unnecessary and unwarranted blow against the Welsh economy.

Mr. Thomas: That is another example of the way the hon. Gentleman exaggerates his case. He has obviously not taken in the fact that in my answer I mentioned that the expenditure on infrastructure is expected to rise about £480 million in 1974–75 compared with £430 million in 1971–72. That is one of the reasons—there are others—why Wales is showing signs of recovery which were not apparent in 1970.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the provision of adequate freight and passenger rail services may be as vital as the provision of other infrastructural services? Will he take full account of this fact in consultation with other members of the Government on the future of rail services in Wales?

Mr. Thomas: All methods of communication are of great importance in Wales.

Mr. Fred Evans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that an adequate rail structure is vital to the Welsh economy, particularly the industrial parts of South Wales? Will he, therefore, undertake to press the Government to see that Regulation 1192 of 1969 of the EEC, relating to transport policy, under which British Rail could benefit by 15 classes of financial aid which could help provide the kind of services we need in Wales, is accepted and operated in Wales?

Mr. Thomas: All matters which affect the continuation and the improvement of the infrastructure in Wales are looked at with great care by me and other members of the Government.

East Moors Steelworks (Closure)

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the employment problems that will arise in Cardiff from the proposed closure of East Moors works.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have received and studied the interim report by the task force. As I have already told hon. Members, the Government's views will be announced as soon as possible after the final report is available.

Mr. Roberts: While Cardiff is an intermediate development area, it has a greater unemployment rate than many development areas. Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposed closure of East Moors steelworks gives a strong case for granting Cardiff full development area status?

Mr. Peter Thomas: As my hon. Friend knows, the status of assisted areas was reviewed last year and the Government decided to make no change affecting Cardiff. But I am fully aware of the importance attached to development area status by Cardiff. The task force has received substantial evidence on this and will no doubt take it into account when making its recommendations.

Mr. George Thomas: In view of the deep anxiety in Cardiff, with its present heavy unemployment problem and the threat of mounting figures, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his attitude towards a debate on the future of the steel industry in Wales being held in the Welsh Grand Committee? He is reluctant to allow us to discuss this matter. Will he now give an undertaking that we can discuss it at the next meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The subject for the Welsh Grand Committee is organised through the usual channels. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, both this House and the Welsh Grand Committee have had many opportunities to discuss the problems of the steel industry and, indeed, the unemployment problem in Wales.

Mr. George Thomas: That is just not good enough. Wales is faced with a very major problem, and, since 29 of the 36 Members for Wales sit on this side of the House, surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that we must have an opportunity to discuss this major issue at the next meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not think that negotiations for the subject of the next


meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee can appropriately be conducted at Question Time.

Hospital Waiting Lists (Newport and East Monmouth)

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many were on the waiting list of the general surgical department of the Newport and East Monmouth group on the appointment of a locum consultant general surgeon who has now been given a notice of termination of employment; what is the present waiting list of this department; and whether the present locum appointment can be extended until the appointment of a permanent consultant surgeon in 1975.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): When the locum was appointed on 1st January 1970, the waiting lists for in-patient and out-patient treatment stood respectively at 1,121 and 711. On 31st March 1973, the latest date for which figures are available, the figures were 1,905 and 613. I understand that the Welsh Hospital Board does not propose to extend the temporary consultant appointment.

Mr. Abse: What possible justification can there be for not extending the appointment when, as the Ministry of State frankly concedes, the numbers on the waiting lists are mounting? What possible justification can there be for hundreds of people in my constituency to have to wait months or years because of the parsimony in refusing either to extend the existing locum appointment or to permit another locum to come along until a firm appointment is made? Is there no consideration or compassion for the hundreds of people on the waiting lists? Will not the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I say at once that there is great consideration and great compassion, and I am the first to admit that the length of the lists in South-East Wales is longer than it should be. It has been long for a considerable time; I have the figures with me. But that, of course, does not make the position any better. An additional permanent consultancy post in general surgery was filled at Newport last August, and a further new post is approved for 1975, while a

new consultancy post in anaesthetics is hoped to be filled later this year. I hope that these steps will help.

M4 Motorway

Mr. Denzil Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he now expects that the M4 motorway will reach the borders of Carmarthenshire.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The Pontardulais bypass, which is the only part of the M4 currently planned for Carmarthenshire, should be completed by mid-1976. The South Wales stretch as a whole will be completed as rapidly as possible subject to the carrying through of statutory procedure.

Mr. Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that his assurances will be welcomed but that to some extent in South-West Wales there is still a certain amount of confusion? Can he tell us whether by 1976 there will be a continuous motorway link between London and the Pontardulais bypass?

Mr. Thomas: I have said frequently that I want the motorway to be finished to Pontardulais by 1976. This depends on the outcome of public inquiries. Obviously I can make no promise in view of the many public objections which have been raised.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Is the Secretary of State detracting from previous assurances given in this House that the M4 will have reached Pontardulais by 1976?

Mr. Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have repeatedly said that it is in my programme to finish this motorway by 1976. I must observe the procedures laid down by the statute and I have to hold public inquiries on the four sections west of Coryton. I have undertaken not to take my decisions on these separately. It has also been necessary to reopen one of these inquiries twice.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps designed to ensure the maximum co-operation in Wales between the existing local authorities and the newly elected local authorities, and assist with arrangements to make available adequate


premises for the accommodation of the newly elected authorities and their officers.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I agree with my hon. Friend that the existing and newly elected councils should co-operate, particularly in the provision of accommodation. But I have no powers to enforce co-operation.

Mr. Gower: Can my hon. Friend say whether any of the new authorities arc having joint consultations with existing authorities?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: That is probably true but I cannot give my hon. Friend any details. If he would like to have them, I can get in touch with him.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the new county of Gwynedd faces serious difficulty in providing not permanent accommodation for its council and staff but even the absolute minimum necessity of temporary accommodation? Will he impress upon his right hon. and learned Friend the need for him to reconsider his recent refusal even to meet a deputation from the council to discuss details of the extremely difficult situation in which it is now placed?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says in the first part of his question and I feel sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has heard what he said in the second part.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the county borough of Newport concerning the future of the home improvement grant scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The borough council has sent me a copy of the report of the independent inspector appointed by it to look into the operation of the home improvement grant scheme in its area and of the housing committee's recommendations on the report. The day-to-day handling of improvement grants is a matter for the local authority, to which I am content to leave it.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate the difficulties which have faced the Newport Corporation in having to work to a limited time scale in the face of such demand? Does he not feel that related to this is the high incidence of poor workmanship which I exposed in the St. Julian area through the columns of the South Wales Argus? Does he further appreciate that the National Federation of Building Trades Employers should be trying to expose this situation and not to hide it?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman has also exposed his feelings in two letters to the Welsh Office. I will only say that the inspector's report deals with this matter. I would like to congratulate the Newport Borough Council on the inspired way in which it has tried to carry out this scheme, even though it has had some difficulties.

Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Minister agree that in general the limits imposed on improvement grants are still unrealistic and that it is time to raise the maximum of £2,000? Is it not also necessary to extend the time during which this facility is available from the Government?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I have no statement to make on that subject today.

Mid-Wales

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the implementation of Her Majesty's Government's policies towards Mid-Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The Government intend to continue with the policy of concentrating development in the growth towns. I am considering the details of this policy in the light of the Welsh Council's Report on Mid-Wales.

Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake not to use that report as an alibi for further delay? Does he not agree that the report is the most insipid and uninspired effort of the Welsh Council to date and that the recommendation it made that no decision should be taken about the establishment of a development body in Mid-Wales until the effects of the 1972 Industry Act


are known is patently false in that up to 1970 there had been a full experiment over a wide range of assistance schemes?

Mr. Thomas: I am in the process of considering and studying the Welsh Council Report on Mid-Wales. It is too early for me to give my considered views on it but my initial reaction is that my views will differ from those of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roderick: Will the Secretary of State stop paying lip service to the growth policy? He has been saying these things for three years and has not yet acted. Will he start implementing some of the policies?

Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman considers the whole of Mid-Wales, he will see that our policy is showing good results.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Industrial Relocation Grants

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial grant has been given to industries to move out of the Greater London Council area in each of the last five years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I regret that this information could not be provided without disproportionate effort.

Mr. Cox: Is not the Minister aware that this information is of great importance to London? In view of the vast sums of public money that have been given to industry to move out, we should have these figures. Is he aware of today's report by the London Chamber of Commerce which expresses deep concern at the continued loss of employment in the London area? Can he say what discussions he is having with the GLC and the London boroughs in an attempt to rectify this? Will he say what surveys his Department carries out when grants are given? Is he aware that there is a growing feeling in London that grants encouraging industry to move out have become a racket, a deliberate attempt by firms to get these grants with no concern for the areas they are leaving or those into which they are moving? What work is being done on this?

Mr. Grant: The view which the hon. Gentleman has just expressed is one which will not be shared by those of his hon. Friends representing assisted areas. The purpose of our policy is to get firms to locate in areas of high unemployment away from places where there is congestion. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development has agreed to meet a delegation from the GLC and the London Boroughs Association. That meeting will take place shortly. We must have a sense of perspective about this. The unemployment rate in London is almost half the national average. Another 7,000 vacancies were announced this month and there are over 73,000 vacancies at present.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not a fact that there is a steady diminution in employment opportunities in the London area and that London is becoming a distress area and will have to be treated in exactly the same way as other distress areas in other parts of the country?

Mr. Grant: I can only say that, if the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything.

Flag Discrimination (GATT Negotiations)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking with other EEC countries to counter United States flag discrimination in the context of the forthcoming GATT negotiations.

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to counter flag discrimination in the context of the forthcoming GATT negotiations.

The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Which, if any, shipping problems should be brought into the forthcoming multilateral trade negotiations will require very careful consideration. There will of course be discussions within the Community on the matters to be raised in these negotiations.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether this matter was raised in the GATT council at the end of May? Will he give an undertaking that he will urge upon our European partners that we should put up


a united front concerning serious discrimination?

Sir G. Howe: I can assure my hon. Friend that we regard it as a matter which we should urge upon a number of different people in a number of different forums. It was raised at the GATT council meeting last month but not dealt with successfully. It has been deferred to the council meeting in June.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister accept that there is a feeling in the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry that the Americans are unduly subsidising certain categories of ships, particularly liquefied natural gas carriers, sometimes to the tune of 25 per cent.? In the light of the Booz-Allen Report on the shipbuilding industry showing an extensive market for this category of ship, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider having discussions between the United States and the United Kingdom Governments to see what can be done to ensure that some share of this type of shipbuilding goes to United Kingdom yards?

Sir G. Howe: Where matters of this kind are likely to result in any significant damage to the interests of this country or to producers in this country, we take the matter up with the Government concerned. I will certainly take account of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Moate: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the report that at one stage the Common Market Commission had approved a condition restricting to Common Market ships the export of certain surplus butter? Is he satisfied that the Common Market Commission, as distinct from the member countries, is totally opposed to flag discrimination?

Sir G. Howe: The point raised by my hon. Friend is a different question, but our views on the practices to which he refers have been made known to the European Community and to the Commission. Further discussion of them has, as I say, been deferred until the next meeting of the GATT council.

Mr. Benn: Are we to take it from what the Minister has said that there will be discussion with the Common Market authorities before the Government make

clear their attitude to the recommendations, or implied recommendations, of the Booz-Allen Report?

Sir G. Howe: No. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to enlarge one aspect of the matter raised by his hon. Friend. The Booz-Allen Report deals with a much wider range of matters. It has already been the subject of discussion and Questions in this House. The question raised by my hon. Friend is a narrow one and different from that.

Mr. Marten: Is there a Common Market shipping policy? If not, may we have an assurance that if the Common Market moves towards such a policy there will be no discrimination against countries like Norway, which has a great shipping fleet, and others of our old EFTA friends?

Sir G. Howe: The evolution of a Common Market shipping policy has not yet taken place. We will bear in mind my hon. Friend's concern with the possibility of discrimination against Norway in this as in other matters.

Pit Closures

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many pits are scheduled for closure due to coal exhaustion over the next two years; what is the weekly tonnage involved; and if he will make a statement on the action his Department is taking to provide jobs for the men who will be made redundant.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): I understand from the National Coal Board that the number of collieries to be closed because of exhaustion of coal during the first half of 1973–74 is likely to be seven, involving a weekly tonnage of about 23,000 tons. The board cannot forecast beyond that period. Action taken by the Government to meet the problems of those who become redundant includes the Coal Industry Act 1973, the proposed improved terms which I recently announced for the Redundant Mineworkers' Payments Scheme, the Industry Act and the provision of further Government factories.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Minister aware that the latter part of his answer causes laughter in the industry because there


have been no results? Are pits to be closed for economic reasons? Is the Minister aware of the growing anger throughout the mining industry at the lack of information from the Government about what is to happen? In view of the energy crisis which is bound to occur in the next 10 or 15 years, will the Government make a statement about what will be done for the coal mining industry?

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman surely knows that the Redundant Mineworkers' Payments Scheme is very much welcomed by the miners and all concerned in the industry. Future closures will depend on the results of the examination of individual collieries by the National Coal Board and the unions in accordance with the new colliery review procedure. It is up to the miners and those engaged in the industry to justify the continuation of pits.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the growing concern about oil supplies, will my hon. Friend confirm that the National Coal Board is doing its utmost to make explorations throughout the country to see what new pits can be opened to increase the supply of coal in the coming decade?

Mr. Boardman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A lot of work has been done with exactly that objective.

Mr. Varley: Is the Minister specifically discussing with the National Coal Board the sinking of new pits? Do he and the Secretary of State intend to meet the national executive committee of the National Union of Mineworkers soon to discuss energy policy?

Mr. Boardman: Yes, I give the hon. gentleman an assurance on both those points. There have been and are discussions with the National Coal Board about the sinking of new pits, and a meeting is to take place with the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss energy policy.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Horam: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the progress of his talks with industry and the trade unions about the regional employment premium.

Mr. Radice: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on his discussions with the CBI and the TUC on the regional employment premium.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Consultations with both sides of industry have begun. A meeting with the TUC was held last week.

Mr. Horam: Are these talks exclusively about the phasing out of REP or do they cover the whole range of labour subsidies or labour taxes in the assisted areas?

Mr. Grant: There is an opportunity for anyone to express views on REP in the discussions about phasing out.

Mr. Radice: In view of the support of the CBI and the TUC for the regional employment premium, will not the Government have the courage or the good sense to change their mind or at least consider the case for a payroll subsidy for development areas? Will the Minister make a statement?

Mr. Grant: The Government will have the good sense to wait until the consultations have taken place and to take note of all the views expressed. We are meeting the CBI next week.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Will my hon. Friend also assure the House that the Government will have the good sense to recognise that the incidence of REP might mean the continuance of jobs, but in some cases, according to recent studies such as the Cambridge study, at fantastically high cost?

Mr. Grant: I assure my hon. Friend that these factors will be taken into consideration by the Government.

Mr. John Smith: Why are only the TUC and the CBI involved in these discussions? Is it not a matter of tremendous importance to all the development areas? Will the Minister consult representatives from the development areas before taking away a subsidy which, according to the Cambridge study, provides between 20,000 and 50,000 extra jobs a year?

Mr. Grant: That is a matter which the hon. Gentleman should put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Company Directors (Cayman Islands Residence)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many directors of British companies are resident in the Cayman Islands.

Sir G. Howe: The answer is not obtainable except at undue expense.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that it is not so important for a person to reside in the Cayman Islands as to have part of his salary channelled there? Can he give the House any information about that form of tax evasion? In particular, will he say how many of the Lonrho directors, including Sir Basil Smallpeice, have part of their directors' fees channelled into an account in the Cayman Islands? Will that activity be covered by the inquiry into the Lonrho affair, and will the figures obtained be published so that the country may be aware of these almost criminal activities at a time when the Government are asking the ordinary worker to restrain his wage demands in the national interest?

Sir G. Howe: The hon. Gentleman makes several imputations. As he knows, the affairs of the Lonrho Company are to be investigated, and the investigators will have power to investigate the affairs of the subsidiaries as well as of the main company. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the tax affairs of individuals cannot be discussed on the Floor of the House. He will remember that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that the Inland Revenue is making and will make full investigation into the tax position of any taxpayer. In the course of doing so it looks at the use or abuse of any devices. My right hon. Friend has also told the House that he is considering what further action is necessary on that front.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the scandalous state of affairs which existed in the Lonrho Company could readily be avoided in the future by the House passing legislation to require a residential qualification before any part of a company director's salary or emoluments could be paid in the Cayman Islands or in any other tax haven, and that that is the proper

recourse which I hope he will apply in any amending company legislation?

Sir G. Howe: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. The impact of taxation and the way in which it should be assessed and collected are more matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer than for me. He has said that he is considering whether further action is necessary on this or associated matters. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says in the context of our consideration of company legislation.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the statistics which suggest that there are more bank accounts in the Cayman Islands than there are blades of grass? Will he make a wider investigation, not just into the single affair before him but into the whole question of what is happening in the banking industry in the Cayman Islands?

Sir G. Howe: I am not able to speak for the blades of grass in the Cayman Islands but I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in mind any tax implications that may arise from matters of this kind.

Mr. Benn: Will the Minister say whether the Lonrho revelations came as a surprise to the Government? If they did not come as a surprise to the Government, why did the Government accept for so long the unacceptable face of capitalism revealed by the Lonrho affair?

Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman when he was in office seemed to have found no difficulty in accepting a whole range of unacceptable faces of various kinds. In fact the present Government are concerned to establish the proposition that the democratic capitalist form of society is that which is most likely to ensure the continued prosperity of the people of this country. It is because we are concerned to ensure that form of society rather than to cast it into some neo-Socialist or neo-Communist society of the kind favoured by the right hon. Gentleman that we are alert to ensure that the capitalist system is working fairly and effectively. That is our prime concern because it is on that system that the prosperity of the country depends.

Mr. Bernn: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions to the Attorney-General.

MATRIMONIAL CASES

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Attorney-General what is his policy regarding giving advice to magistrates on matrimonial cases.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to her on 23rd March 1971. Since then my noble and learned Friend, on 11th June 1971, addressed the Magistrates' Association on the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts in family matters, which is a subject to which he continues to attach much importance.—[Vol. 814, c. 85.]

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that since supplementary benefit has been much more accessible to divorced and deserted wives, there has been a marked reluctance by the courts to award or to enforce maintenance payments? Should not courts be made aware that this puts deserted or divorced wives at a great disadvantage? If such a wife receives supplementary benefit and then starts to earn, she loses supplementary benefit, whereas if she received maintenance payments this would not be the case.

The Attorney-General: I will look at the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. If she could give me specific details, I would be interested to receive them.

Mr. Dalyell: When do the Government expect to have in their hands the Finer Report?

The Attorney-General: That does not arise from this Question, but I can answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that I do not know.

LAND REGISTRY

Mr. Tugendhat: asked the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied with the regulations regarding access to the Land Registry; and whether he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: The Law Commission is considering this matter and until it reports I must reserve judgment.

Mr. Tugendhat: Despite that answer, I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend can say why in the past, and indeed at present, the Land Registry should be so confidential whereas the Companies Register is relatively open. Does he agree that the situation in England differs substantially from that which obtains in Scotland? Is he aware that there is concern that confidentiality of the Land Register enables owners to let and sublet their premises for disreputable purposes? Will he assure the House that the present procedure does not impede the police in the progress of their inquiries into disreputable activities?

The Attorney-General: Scotland does not have a system of land registry similar to that which exists in this country but has a system which involves registration of deeds. Land registration applies to less than half the properties in the country. The contents of the register have been kept confidential with access limited to certain people because they set out many private matters, including the credit reputation of particular persons, the mortgages they may hold and the bankruptcies they may have sustained, all of which go to a person's credit and are private matters. Therefore, it is for consideration whether this should be given access to by anybody who wishes to look at a particular registration. The Law Commission is looking into this matter among others.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The Attorney-General said that less than half the land is subject to registration. Can he assure the House that his choice of words does not mean that he has any less enthusiasm for the task of bringing all land under registration than had the Labour Government who commenced the policy?

The Attorney-General: The Law Commission was given this task to consider and published a working paper in September 1970; it is expected to give a final report covering all aspects of land registration. Among these aspects will be whether it should be right for people to be be able to see what bankruptcies the property owners have sustained, or what mortgages they have. This is a complex


matter which goes into various wide fields affecting the law of privacy, if there is such a thing.

POTENTIAL LITIGANTS (MEETINGS WITH JUDGES)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Attorney-General what is the practice regarding meetings on an official level between members of the judiciary and potential litigants.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Attorney-General what is the practice relating to members of the judiciary meeting potential litigants for official purposes.

The Attorney-General: It would be highly improper for a judge to discuss the circumstances of a particular case outside his court with any litigant or any person who had litigation in view, and if he did have such discussions, whether intentionally or accidentally, he would be disqualified from sitting in that case. But it is plainly desirable that those who have an interest in the work of the courts, whether as professional advisers or potential litigants, should be able to make constructive suggestions which may help to improve the service which the courts provide. If this process can be assisted by representative bodies meeting members of the judiciary from time to time, there is nothing to prevent it; and facilities already exist in the Commercial Court Users Liaison Committee and other bodies to provide for such contacts with the judges concerned.

Mr. Davis: Does the Attorney-General consider it conducive to the operation of the National Industrial Relations Court, having regard to the widespread suspicion that already exists among trade unionists concerning the operation of that court, for Sir John Donaldson to have met representatives of the engineering employers to discuss the operation of the Act? Does he think that that is likely to create in the minds of the trade unions a belief that justice will be done in that court?

The Attorney-General: Sir John Donaldson, when he first opened the court, made clear that the court was to provide a service and the court considered that it was engaged in a service industry,

in the same way as the Commercial Court which asks for constructive suggestions and for dealings between the court and those who appear as litigants or their professional advisers. That applies to the working of the court and involves consultation with those who use the court, not in a particular case but in terms of the procedure and practice which should be followed so that the court can provide a useful and proper service.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the very distinguished judge, Sir John Donaldson equally would welcome constructive suggestions from and discussions with his opposite numbers on the trade union side?

The Attorney-General: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It has been the practice in the Commercial Court to ask for suggestions from everybody concerned since they may be useful and helpful.

Mr. Heffer: Has not the whole point been missed? When the court was first established, Sir John Donaldson made it clear that in particular cases there could be informal discussions in view of the informal nature of the court. But that is not what is happening. What is happening is that the representatives of the Engineering Employers' Federation met Sir John Donaldson, the judge, to discuss amendments to the Act. Is it not the job of this House and of the Government to determine the nature of the Act and not the job of the judge, who should be responsible only for implementing it? Does it not underline the point made by the trade unions that this is a political court with a political judge who is interfering in political matters?

The Attorney-General: It is not a political court and Sir John is not a political judge. It is grossly unfair of the hon. Member to accuse Sir John Donaldson in that way. Sir John made it clear when he opened the court that he would welcome informed and constructive criticism from any and all quarters, and this is what he has been seeking so that the court shall be able to operate in a way which suits the proper parties to any particular litigation before that court. It has been the


practice followed in the Commercial Court and it is a practice which should be followed in the Industrial Relations Court. I entirely refute the hon. Member's suggestion about this learned judge.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does not the Attorney-General agree that justice manifestly must be seen to be done and that in the circumstances which now exist—circumstances which are quite different from those which apply in the Commercial Court—it is questionable whether a judge of the Industrial Relations Court should see parties on one side only when he does not see the other side at all?

The Attorney-General: The Engineering Employers' Federation did not make any proposals and has not put forward any proposed amendments to the Industrial Relations Act. The meeting was about the working of the Act as it now is. It was for that purpose that the employers' representatives saw the judge on that date.

Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

MAGISTRATES (WALES)

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: asked the Attorney-General how many times in the past two years his Department has investigated the actions, decisions or comments of a magistrate during a court case in Wales.

The Attorney-General: Six times.

Mr. Jones: Does not the Attorney-General agree that any extension of the stipendiary magistracy in Wales should be viewed with disfavour? Does he agree, further, that there is no lack of genuine impartiality in Wales and that any magistrate who in future disobeys or disregards his oath of allegiance ought to be removed from office?

The Attorney-General: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the duties of magistrates and the proper carrying out of them. There have been six cases, only one of which involved a stipendiary magistrate. The other five involved

ordinary lay magistrates. But it is essential that magistrates, who do not have to take appointments as magistrates, should carry out their duties in accordance with their oaths.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Attorney-General aware that at present we have two standards of justice in Wales and that these politically biased magistrates, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own knowledge, have on at least six occasions shown favour to people which would not be shown to English-speaking Welsh people? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take action to ensure that where magistrates are plainly motivated by personal bias they should be removed from the bench?

The Attorney-General: On each of the previous five occasions, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made inquiries and sought and received assurances from the magistrates concerned. In respect of the last case on 17th May 1973—the Caernarvon case, of which the right hon. Gentleman will be aware—my noble and learned Friend asked the chairman of the bench for an explanation, and he is still pursuing his inquiries.

CHRYSLER LIMITED (DISPUTE)

Mr. Edelman: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the strike at Chrysler Ltd, Coventry.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): Some 4,500 employees at the company's Ryton plant have been on strike since 31st May in support of a claim that 500 day shift workers in the body shop should be paid for 1½ hours lost when management stopped the assembly line on 24th May. This dispute follows an inter-union dispute at the Linwood plant earlier in May. A strike by AUEW millwrights in protest against the employment by a contractor of TGWU millwrights led in turn to a further strike by members of the TGWU at that plant who claimed that they should be paid for the time lost under a guaranteed week agreement. These disputes led to a shortage of sheet metal components at Ryton where assembly workers had to be laid off on 22nd and 23rd May.
Following the resolution of the Linwood dispute employees at Ryton were recalled on Thursday 24th May. During that shift the production line was stopped five times to allow discussions on the quality of the work being produced, the company claiming that two out of every three car bodies were having to be rejected. Finally, management stopped the line 1½ hours before the end of the shift. The succeeding night shift worked normally and quality standards were maintained. The following day the day shift went on strike following the company's refusal to pay for the 1½ hours lost.
After the Spring Bank Holiday a normal day shift was worked on Wednesday 30th May by the employees previously on night shift, but when the employees in dispute reported this time for the night shift they went on strike when again refused payment for the time lost. Other employees at the plant joined the strike the following day.
The company is prepared to discuss the issue following a return to normal working, but the shop stewards concerned are demanding full payment for the time lost as a condition for a return to work.
I am keeping closely in touch with the situation, and the conciliation facilities of my Department are of course always available.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not tragic that this dispute has escalated from a shop floor disagreement about 1½ hours' pay into a major national problem? In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman discourage those administering this firm from using words such as "sabotage" and making threats in the Henry Ford manner that they will remove investment overseas unless the workers toe the line?

Mr. Heffer: They will do it, anyway.

Mr. Edelman: Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an independent investigation to be made into the origins of the dispute in order to prevent the dispute from developing in an even more tragic and unhappy manner?

Mr. Macmillan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the General Secretary of the TGWU that the earlier that these people can talk about the point at issue in this dispute, the better. However, I should make it plain that management

representatives have not uttered threats about exporting the investment. They have pointed out, as they did a year ago to the union concerned, that in order to justify further investment in this country it would be necessary for productivity and regularity of work at least to match those of the other countries where they could invest.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if the allegations made both in the Economist and in the Sunday Express about industrial sabotage and about attacks on the homes of those who did not wish to strike in Swansea are true, this is doing great harm not only to the company but to our export trade and to the trade union movement itself, the majority of whose members are moderate and sensible men and women of good will? If the allegations are true, will my right hon. Friend institute an inquiry and expose these tactics as soon as possible?

Mr. Macmillan: At this stage I do not think that an inquiry would do any good in resolving this dispute. It is fair to point out to my hon. Friend that, following the day shift which was in dispute, the night shift worked normally and produced perfectly adequate work. After the Spring Bank Holiday when the members of that night shift became the day shift they again worked normally. It is among the one shift that there is trouble.

Mr. Prentice: Is the Secretary of State aware that the kind of statement that he made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) will have a profoundly disturbing effect? The right hon. Gentleman gave a very one-sided account of a great deal of the detail leading to the stoppage but failed completely to mention the effect of the threats uttered by the Chrysler Company, which have had a devastating effect on the situation?
May I put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman? First, does his information confirm information which I obtained about an hour ago that the offer made by the union to the Chrysler Company about talks at either national or local level has been completely rejected by the Chrysler management which says that its attitude about a return to work precludes its representatives from talking to union officials


at any level? If that is so, will not the right hon. Gentleman tell the Chrysler management to come off it, that he regards it as urgent that there should be talks between the two sides, and that he expects both sides to try to reach a settlement?
Secondly, and arising out of that question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not good enough in a matter of this seriousness for him to act as a spectator? Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot obtain direct talks between the two sides, will he not consider the other method of securing a forum in which to discuss the matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the organisation known as the Motor Council, which was established to provide a bridge between the two sides in crises of this nature and which I understand has not met for a long time? Why not?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to Chrysler and other American companies which invest in this country that he, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, expects them to deal intelligently with their labour problems and that what is required is a patient and sophisticated approach in this very difficult industry? There is no short cut by way of confrontation, and the clumsy threats in the Chrysler statement were bound to lead to serious trouble.

Mr. Macmillan: First, the position of both the management and the shop stewards is clear. I accept that it is that which causes the difficulty. The management has made it plain that it is not prepared to discuss the issue until there has been a return to work. The shop stewards have also made it plain that they are not prepared to contemplate returning to work until full payment for the time lost has been made. That is the position as I understand it.
Secondly, I will certainly look into the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the Motor Council. I must admit that I had not yet considered that.
Thirdly, whatever view one may take about the public utterances by the Chrysler management, it is right to recognise that this is not a new position. It was discussed between the management and the unions concerned a very long time ago.

Mr. Grieve: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is tragic, at a time of great expansion in the national economy, that that expansion should be put in jeopardy by strikes not only at Ryton but at factories of component producers in the motor industry? Will he make the facilities of the conciliation machinery of his Department available not only at Ryton but also in those strikes in the production of components which are likely to put motor production in jeopardy elsewhere in the West Midlands?

Mr. Macmillan: There are five other disputes of various kinds within the motor car industry. I am happy to tell my hon. and learned Friend that the two sides concerned are either meeting or are about to meet to resolve the issues involved in all cases. This is the one remaining dispute. I agree that it is tragic that it should occur at a time when expansion in the motor car industry, following the expansion of the economy, should otherwise be looked for.

Mr. William Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much of the trouble at Ryton is due to a union fear, rightly or wrongly, that if Chrysler had the opportunity it would move out of the Coventry-Rugby region altogether? Does he believe that American-sponsored threats and counter-threats will create industrial peace in the car industry, particularly coming a few weeks after the management at Ryton had written to all the employees thanking them for their splendid efforts? What has happened in the meantime?
Finally, I should like to refer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) which was not answered. Will the right hon. Gentleman set up a straightforward independent inquiry into industrial relations at that plant?

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Gentleman is thinking of an inquiry by the CIR into general industrial relations in the company concerned, may I point out that it is possible for the CIR to examine and report on ways in which industrial relations in an industry might be improved in the longer term but that it is not part of its rôle to inquire into current disputes of this kind with a view to bringing them to an end. These are two separate issues.
Regarding the threats, the hon. Gentleman almost answered his own question when he pointed out that the management had written to the labour force. I think it is wrong to regard this is as a threat. It is a statement by the management referring not to current investment or development of existing factories but to new investment about which the company has been in discussion with the unions concerned pointing out that it was difficult to justify continuing investment when the level of productivity and the security of production was in its view less than it could obtain by putting that investment elsewhere.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what was not a clumsy threat, as the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) dubbed it, was the statement by the employers that this company has the worst strike record of any plant of theirs anywhere in the world? Is it reasonable to expect the company to pour new investment money into this country having regard to the dismal record of the past?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend points out that there have been difficulties at this site. Indeed, the company claims that in the first quarter of this year it has lost close on 4,000 vehicles and £2·7 million in revenue due to internal disputes at Ryton. During the last six months, the company claims to have lost 17 per cent. of its scheduled production, amounting to 17,000 cars in all plants because of internal disputes.
I do not wish to seek to allocate blame, but that is a difficult background against which to see further development. It is very much in the interests of all concerned to try to resolve the problem as quickly and reasonably as possible. I do not think that trying to allocate blame across the Floor of the House or calling people names will help very much one way or the other.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unions have already shown their willingness to improve industrial relations? In February they took the initiative and conducted a detailed report which involved union district officials virtually living at the plants, going through each area and producing a

detailed report, including the body in white section, as a result of which the company has done nothing at all?
Is he also aware that the only reaction to the dispute by the Chrysler management at Ryton has been to lock the gates, to refuse to talk, and not to pay holiday money? Will he disregard some of the more stupid and nonsensical allegations of sabotage made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) and find out why the Chrysler management will not talk?

Mr. Macmillan: Obviously I do not accept all that the hon. Gentleman said. It is most unfortunate, at a time of expansion and when there was evidence of improving industrial relations, that this incident should have taken place, particularly as there is also evidence—I put it no higher—that a relatively small number of the work people concerned were affected. This matter has escalated. It is of great importance not only to the country but to the company and the work people involved that we should try to work towards a solution and get a discussion of the underlying problems as soon as possible.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as soon as Chrysler had taken over the outstanding equity in Chrysler (UK) it stopped exporting complete cars to the United States and replaced the cars that it had been exporting to the United States with cars from Japan? Is he also aware that not one of the American-owned motor industries in this country is exporting complete cars to the United States, whereas British Leyland's exports have been rising rapidly? Therefore, in view of this situation and uniquely bad labour relations in the motor industry, does my right hon. Friend feel that there is justification for a much-wider ranging inquiry than that which he has in mind?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, I certainly would not rule out the possibility of a further and more wide-ranging inquiry. On the other hand, I should point out that inquiries undertaken by the CIR into industrial relations in an industry are geared to the longer term. The CIR is not geared to inquire into a current dispute as a means towards resolving it.

Mr. Buchan: As the right hon. Gentleman places great weight on the circumstances arising at Linwood in my constituency, may I point out that that problem was solved by discussion at local level? Will he encourage the same procedure without pre-conditions to be adopted in the factory in England?
Secondly, will he move a little further? As I understand his last statement, he has agreed to a generalised inquiry. Will he gear it up, to use his term, and have an inquiry on this issue?
Thirdly, does lie agree, as everyone else in the country has agreed, that the letter that was sent out was intended as a threat, is seen as a threat, and ought to be withdrawn?

Mr. Macmillan: I did not say that I would agree to a general inquiry. I said that I would look into the possibility of a general inquiry. But, as I pointed out, an inquiry of this kind would not be suitable to try to resolve this dispute. I agree that the previous dispute was settled by discussion. When it comes to taking up entrenched positions, I should point out that at the moment both sides are taking up such positions. The management says that it cannot discuss the matter until there is a return to work and the union says that it cannot authorise a return to work until there is full payment for the 1½hours lost.

NEW MEMBERS

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

Miss Betty Boothroyd, for West Bromwich.

Roger Stott, esquire, for West Houghton.

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS BILL

Ordered,
That the Government Trading Funds Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[21sT ALLOTTED DAY],—considered

NORTHERN REGION

Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), to move the motion, I have to inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the names of the Prime Minister and of his right hon. Friends, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the vigorous regional policy of Her Majesty's Government, which is now reducing unemployment and improving living standards in the Northern Region'.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: I beg to move,
That this House, deeply concerned at the persistent social inequalities, low household incomes and lack of job opportunities in the Northern Region, demands urgent action from Her Majesty's Government in activating a positive regional policy which will create new jobs, sustain economic growth, expand the social services and improve the environment, thus closing the gap between the more prosperous areas and the Northern Region.
I begin from the very firm basic premise that experience of post-war years sharply reveals the vast difference of attitude between Labour and Tory Governments towards the deeply entrenched disparities existing between our richer and poorer regions. Following the example set by the Attlee Government of 1945–51, the Wilson administration of 1964–70 determinedly attacked the intolerable imbalance by introducing a number of measures deliberately weighted in favour of expanded development areas, and by 1970 the total amount of preferential aid to those areas amounted to an annual sum of £314 million, whilst other forms of indirect aid increased the total value of assistance to well over £750 million.
The Northern Region, battling as we almost always have done against unprecedently high job losses in coal mining, agriculture and railways, benefited enormously from these policies. New job


opportunities generated at a faster pace than ever before. In April 1970, significantly, 42,700 jobs were estimated to accrue in manufacturing industry alone, including 31,000 male jobs. Over the next four years, between 1966 and 1970, arising directly from industrial development certificate approvals, 56 advance factories were provided. In addition, a rapid expansion of industrial floor space involving 9·9 million sq. ft. in 1969, following the record 11 million sq. ft. in 1968, was provided. In the industrial training centres there was an increase in capacity to over 3,000 places per annum, and 30 per cent. of the total national investment in new construction was allocated to the Northern Region.
That was indeed a legacy of progress, unfortunately compulsorily bequeathed to the incoming Tory Government, but nevertheless requiring continuity and stabilisation. A real opportunity was given to the present Government and their supporters to capitalise on the work which had already been done but this opportunity unfortunately was sacrificed on the altar of doctrinaire Toryism and the dogma of the free market——

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): If the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his review of the past, there is just one statistic which he has left out. One of the achievements of the Labour Government between 1966 and 1970 in the Northern Region was that they nearly doubled unemployment and left it on a rapidly rising trend.

Mr. Urwin: The right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of defending the intolerably high levels of unemployment which his Government succeeded in inducing over a period of only three years. Had they taken advantage of the opportunity I have described there is a distinct possibility, indeed the certainty, that unemployment would not have reached those levels. There was, instead, preoccupation with the Selsdon promise to end "wasteful" expenditure of public money on industrial development in the development areas and reliance on what one Government spokesman described as the begging bowl. Those almost endless months of arid Tory thinking following the General Election, relieved only by the positive decision

to end investment grants and to phase out REP from 1974, imposed an unnecessary and wholly unjustifiable restriction on the economic development of the Northern Region.
Faced with the impending descent of the sword of Damocles on the differential grant system IDC approvals fell to 7,359 sq. ft. of factory space in 1970, with estimated provision of 15,389 jobs. In 1971, it fell further to 4,249 sq. ft., an abysmally low level creating on estimate only 4,459 jobs. To July 1972 it fell further still to 1,619 sq. ft. and only 3,108 jobs. I must suggest to the Government that the lack of effective monitoring since the abolition of IDCs in July last year tends to disguise the present situation. It is, however, a fact that enormous publicity is given to what is described as an inundation of applications under the Industry Act, yet to the end of March 1973 only 24 firms have received grant assistance in the Northern Region, to a total of a mere £412,000.
This most certainly does not justify the lofty claims by the Government about the efficacy of that Act. What we do know is that over the past three years IDC approvals in the overcrowded South-East are estimated to create 41,153 new jobs—a gross and most unwarrantable perpetuation of imbalance in new job creation, and one which is highly detrimental not only to the Northern Region but to other development areas, too. Far from asserting control in such matters, an official of the Department of Trade and Industry has admitted to a sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee that only 10 per cent. of IDC applications in the South-East are refused.
Additionally, the fact that the present system of incentives to industry considerably reduces the differential element introduces a further deterrent to firms which, in the pre-1970 package, were encouraged to move to the development areas. This is fully endorsed by Mr. Dearing, the DTI's Northern Industrial Director, who, in evidence to the same sub-committee, admitted that there is now less money available to industrial developers than there was in 1969 and that the system is now much less favourable to the attraction of incoming industry.
The Government's amendment to this censure motion is clearly one of self-praise. I suggest to the Minister for Industrial Development that the Government's recovery from the high unemployment level for which they were responsible has been achieved very largely in spite of the Government's regional policies rather than because of them. Ironically, the Government have now expressed their determination to phase out the regional employment premium from September 1974, a decision which can result only in the further undermining of confidence of industrialists who may be thinking of investing in the development areas.
Regional employment premium was introduced by the Labour Government in 1967. Let there be no mistake about this and no room for misunderstanding. Our policy was to review the position in 1974 and to determine the efficacy of REP and the necessity or otherwise of renewing the operation for a further period. During the past three years, the ravages of rampant inflation have heavily eroded the value of the premium, to such an extent that upward revision is the more sensible alternative.
Now, despite the pleas of local authorities—I have in mind Durham County Council, Sunderland County Borough Council and many others—which warned the Government of impending job losses in the North, and the claim of the CBI that if the REP is stopped the result could be a loss of between 20,000 and 50,000 jobs in the development areas, the Government intend to phase out REP next year. The figure for job losses is now estimated at 10,000 in the northern Region. Compared with the £300 million tax hand-out to richer taxpayers and the £15 million subsidy to private house buyers, at £100 million a year REP represents a very sound investment towards the reduction of unemployment. We urge the Government to think again before it is too late.
The time has arrived when the Government must begin seriously to approach the question of regional policies much more constructively than hitherto, even to the extent—dare one hint—of further intervention—distasteful as that is to them—in industrial affairs and activities.
The Northern Region and the steel industry certainly could not afford the long-

drawn-out negotiations with the British Steel Corporation—30 months of wrangling, resulting finally in a cut of £1,000 million from the industry's proposed investment. Mindful of the fact that one-third of the estimated job losses in steel will occur in the North, we must have planned alternative industries to take up the displaced personnel.
Diversification of our industrial base cannot be fully achieved unless and until a large section of the car industry is located in the Northern Region, providing a large number of new jobs, new apprenticeships which are badly needed in diversifying skills and a tremendous boost to the region's morale.
The Leyland expansion project offers an appropriate challenge to the Government to persuade Lord Stokes to site this development in the Northern Region, which offers excellent port facilities, suitable sites, and an abundance of labour supply with a proven ability to adapt following training.
There are still 50,000 men unemployed in the Northern Region, only 5,000 of whom have established skills. Nevertheless, they are certainly adaptable to training if training opportunities are provided. An additional advantage in the siting of this major project in the region is that the region already supplies ready access to steel supplies.
Assuming, perhaps, that the Prime Minister is really concerned about the future of the Northern Region, he may well seek to emulate the successful intervention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition which resulted in the establishment of the British Leyland national bus plant at Workington and has since proved the wisdom of the British Leyland decision to settle in Workington on that basis.
I also remind the Government of the increasing urgency attached to the evolvement of a co-ordinated national energy policy, especially in the light of the onset of world fuel shortages, a policy which would firmly establish and maintain the position of coal as a major commodity, thus ensuring the future of the industry as the largest employer of labour in the North, despite continuing vulnerability to pit closures.
In the shipbuilding world, the growing world demand for new ships


undoubtedly brought new stimulus to the industry. Large orders are being won, presenting an exciting challenge to the northern yards. But there are problems. They are especially highlighted in the Booz-Allen Report, which requires immediate Government decision, especially arising from the forecast that there will be large-scale redundancies in this industry.
Meanwhile, the Government must take an early decision on the application, which has been filed for some time, of the Doxford and Sunderland groups for loans to build a new covered yard at Pallion and provision of finance to Austin Pickersgill and the Court Line in order to assist them with their modernisation. Swan Hunter, despite its splendid record, is in the queue for financial assistance for modernisation and wishes to convert the Hebburn Repair Yard, which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors lost no time in closing when they took office shortly after the 1970 General Election. The intention of Swan Hunter is to convert this yard to shipbuilding purposes in order to be able to compete in the growing world markets for new ships. These are imperative requirements and must at least be equated with large amounts which have been allocated to shipyards in other areas.
The Government must seriously consider intervening in the exploitation of North Sea oil to ensure that full benefits flow to the Northern Region. I am deeply mindful of the appointment of Lord Polwarth as oil supremo. This places him in a position to make vitally important decisions which may well detrimentally affect and influence the position in the North.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the North is not very well served in direct representation, certainly not in comparison with the two other major development areas. The right hon. Gentleman should consider appointing a co-ordinator for the Northern Region as a whole to oversee the oil industry to ensure that the region is fairly treated.
The right hon. Gentleman may feel that references to the construction industry are not quite in accord with the terms of the motion, which censures the Government for their failure to apply a radical and sensible regional policy. But there are all sorts of components in a

regional policy, and the construction industry reveals yet another area where planning, even of an elementary nature, is conspicuously absent. In the midst of absolute chaos, there is an escalation of wage drift, almost all materials are in desperately short supply, the industry is in chaos and labour bottlenecks exist alongside an unemployment figure of 11,000 men, while building costs have almost doubled in the three years of the present Government.
Yet in housing Government policies have ensured a drastic reduction in new houses for rent—it is not unusual for the Government to regard council housing in this way—with increasing emphasis on building houses for sale, even though the average wage earner cannot obtain a building society mortgage on a new house. Yet the Government used their full weight to prevent the Sunderland Corporation from building houses for sale, presumably because this would present a challenge to the supremacy of private builders.
We can proudly and justifiably claim that there has been a vast improvement in communications in the Northern Region, especially during the period 1964–70. We frequently boast that we have the best system of communications of any region in Britain, but there is no room for complacency. More needs to be done.
I draw the Minister's attention particularly to the A66 into West Cumberland, a remote area which is vital to industrial development and which would be infinitely better served if this road were to be programmed and built. Especially in view of the recent cuts in capital expenditure, one is concerned to ask the Minister what is the present position as regards this road.
Another predominant weakness of this administration is their lack of co-ordination of the work of Government Departments. Here I refer specifically to the disgraceful situation which has developed over the Kielder water project. The inspector's report presented to the Secretary of State for the Environment indicates to him all the known requirements for water supply and conveys to him all the information that he could possibly need to make a decision. On the basis of that information there could have been only one decision for him to make. It is within the Secretary of State's knowledge that the Durham County Water Board


will be in shortage by 1974. The Secretary of State has had the very strong and distinct advantage of expert opinions from all people including economists, in the water world; but his decision, which was received with bewilderment, shock, frustration, and indeed anger, in some parts of the Northern Region, was not one favourable to Kielder, even though the inspector had said not only that it should be authorised but that the situation was so urgent that the work should begin immediately.
However, the Secretary of State chose to defer a decision and to reconstitute the inquiry, which I understand reopens on 19th June. Meanwhile, the Northumbrian River Authority has informed the Government that the cost of this project, which was estimated at £9,050,000 in 1969, has escalated in 1973 to £13,340,000, an increase of 40 per cent. Worse still, every hour that the Minister dallies is estimated to add another £120 to the bill for Kielder water.
I emphasise the lack of co-ordination between Departments. Evidently the Department of Trade and Industry has no influence over the Department of the Environment, because the former Department must surely recognise, even though the Secretary of State for the Environment does not, that the adequate supply of water is vital to industrial development as well as to domestic users in the badly hit Northern Region. It is a known fact that one industrialist so far has refused to embark on an expansion of his business in the Northern Region because of the uncertainty about water supplies.
I turn, in much the same vein of coordination, to the outstanding need for office development in the Northern Region. Again I urge the Minister who is to reply on behalf of the Government to speed up the presentation of the Hardman Report. The Government must recognise that the North is woefully short of Civil Service jobs. There is the heavy concentration in London and the South-East, even though London reputedly is the most expensive office rental centre in the world. Yet only one out of 300 employed persons in the Northern Region is a civil servant as compared with one in 49 in London and the South-East.
I remind the Minister of the decision taken some time ago by his Government that the PAYE centre which the Labour Government had planned to be built in Washington New Town. It has not been replaced by an equal number of Civil Service jobs. Not only was this regarded as a prestige product, but a minimum of 2,500 white collar jobs would have been provided in an area which is sadly lacking especially the employment opportunities for young people.
Another field in which the Government might well consider intervention, and in which the next Labour Government most certainly will consider intervention, is the investment of multi-national companies. It is essential in the interests of even regional development that new disciplines should be adopted by multi-national companies to ensure that their industrial development takes place in the right places. It is equally important to ensure that such investment is not scattered indiscriminately around Europe as a result of our entry into the European Economic Community.
In much the same strain the right hon. Gentleman should address himself perhaps a little more strongly than he appears to have done so far to the Economic Community's proposed development fund. I refer to the definition of "peripheral area". The Minister for Local Government and Development, speaking in Sunderland a few days ago at a ceremony organised by the Design Centre—I think I have his words correctly—said that he had been with representatives of the EEC discussing this very question of peripheral areas and their designation. The right hon. Gentleman said,
They were very impressed with the progress made in the North and with its competitiveness.
I hope that I am not being ultra pessimistic and that I am wrong in deducing from those few words, on which the Minister did not expand, that he had not fought for the inclusion of the Northern Region in these areas or that, if he had fought, he had been defeated.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not true. He should not read that into the words which I used.

Mr. Urwin: Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman speaks at the Dispatch Box he will tell us what he said. This is of great concern not only to the Northern Region but to Scotland, Wales, the South-West and Merseyside as well. If the Government are impressed with the competitiveness of the North it is reasonable to assume that we may well not be included in the peripheral areas and eligible for what money may be made available from the Community's development fund. I suggest that we can no more afford to lose out to the EEC than we can to the more prosperous areas of Britain in the matter of development.
In the interests of the Northern Region as well as the other development areas, the Government ought to begin to assert more rigorous control over industrial development both within and outside the development areas. They ought to revise the incentive system in order to restore the differentials between the SDAs, the DAs and the non-development areas. They should begin to plan development in accordance with the requirements of the region. They may even be bold enough to consider the establishment of joint State-private enterprises where private industry has failed to measure up to its responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman might be still a little bolder and, in the best interests of the Northern Region, consider setting up new publicly-owned industries. This is something which a Labour Government will most certainly be considering when we return to office.
The North is admittedly recovering, despite the euphemisms in the amendment to the motion. But the Northern Region is recovering much more slowly from economic depression than the rest of the country, and it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that there is a continuous policy of development in the North. I say that deliberately because we have already had cuts in public expenditure amounting to £600 million. Inevitably we shall be faced with an autumn Budget, with unquantifiable results for the Northern Region.
The new chairman of the Northern Economic Planning Council, whom I congratulate on his appointment, is quoted as having said last week that the present boom will flatten out in six months. I

say to the Government that when the boom does flatten out, as it surely will—whether six months is the correct estimate or not—we in the Northern Region, having made a major contribution to the economic well being of this country, need make no apology for expecting to be cushioned against those economic effects.

4.24 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the vigorous regional policy of Her Majesty's Government, which is now reducing unemployment and improving living standards in the Northern Region'.
Towards the end of his speech the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) called for a continuous policy of development in the Northern Region. I hope I shall be able to satisfy him that that indeed is the policy of this Government. The policy and the actions of the Government have resulted, are resulting and will continue to result in exactly what the motion demands. They are creating new jobs; they are sustaining economic growth; they are expanding the social services and improving the environment. Indeed, the policy and the actions of the Government, as the amendment asserts, are reducing unemployment and improving the living standards in the North.
I say at once that, although the Government are entitled to take credit for achievement in the Northern Region, we are in no way smug about it in the face of the very considerable problems presented in the region by changing industries and changing industrial processes. Those changes can, if not handled correctly, be disastrous but they are, on the other hand, the opportunity for very substantial improvement in the quality of life in the North.
To ensure that the results of change are not disastrous but that the opportunities are seized, I see the basic job of government, whether central or local, as that of providing the foundation and the background for industry and commerce, and indeed the trade unions, to recognise those opportunities and to exploit them, in the best meaning of the word.
The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring said that there were different aspects of this problem, and indeed, I


think one of the basic aspects—perhaps the basic aspect—is what one might refer to as the infrastructure, or the amenities, or the public works, or the environment generally, some parts of which are the responsibility of central government and some the responsibility of local government.
I do not want to refer back too far because it is the present and the future with which we are concerned in this debate, but so far as one important piece of infrastructure is concerned—the roads, communications and transport of the Northern Region—the Hailsham plan, started a decade ago, carried out by both Governments, set in motion what I would call a decade of 100 motorway and trunk road schemes, 50 of which have been executed and 50 of which are still in hand. The best regional road network in Europe has given us a wonderful springboard for the next decade. I hope that we can really take advantage of it.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about roads and the infrastructure of the Northern Region, will he confirm that, in spite of the recently announced cuts, the A66 trunk road proposals will proceed as planned?

Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to work out my own argument and explanation, I will come to that in due course.
First-class communications both within the region and connecting with areas outside it are vital to its prosperity. We have just completed £90 million worth of roads under the Hailsham plan, and we are now building on to that. We have repaired the omission from the plan—that is, in the western part of the region—by dealing with the 64 miles, at a cost of £62 million, of the M6 north of Carnforth. We are going ahead—I now come to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman—with the improvement of the A66 from Scotch Corner to Penrith and on to Workington. That is a project which, incidentally, will provide 800 jobs. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] While it is being constructed.
We have just had an inquiry. We have said that this is the preferred route. One then has to go through the all-too-long

procedure—it is seven or eight years before one see the traffic moving on a road—but it is our way of doing things in order to protect those through whose land the road is being laid, those who wish to put the amenity points, and so on. We shall get on with that as quickly as the procedure allows, and not only will it provide this number of jobs during the actual construction work but when it is built it will, of course, assist the Leyland National bus factory to get up to its capacity of 350 employees in Workington. Then there is the A69 from Newcastle to Carlisle.
The road strategy of the North has been based on the A1, the A1(M) and the A19. The A19 construction north from Dishforth through Teesside, bypassing Sunderland and Washington, connecting with Tyneside, and then on to the new road from Newcastle to the A1 at Seaton Burn is really the lifeline of the North-East. Links with the other regions are vital too. I forecast that the M1 extension which bypasses Leeds will become just as famous as the Northern link as is the Midland link between the M1 and the M6.
Many urban schemes are just as important as the inter-city schemes. There is the Central Motorway East in Newcastle, the Western Bypass to Gateshead and the A19 diversion at Teesside—a £20 million job. The southern bypass of Stockton and Thornaby will cost £8 million and the Billingham diversion some £5 million. There is also the Northern Loop road bypass to Middlesbrough. All these projects in themselves mean extra employment for a considerable period during construction, and then they serve the great industrial areas and increase the employment potential there. The average of nearly £50 million expenditure on roads in the region every year since 1969 cannot fail to have some good effect upon employment and productivity and, therefore, upon earnings.
It is clear that the Northern Region is not merely benefiting from the significant upturn in the national economy but is progressing in its own right. In the last year the number of unemployed has dropped by 20,000 and outstanding vacancies have doubled.

Mr. George Grant: The Minister talks about the reduction in unemployed. Will he tell us what the figure


would have been had the criteria remained the same as they were in 1970? I am referring to the possibility of large numbers of unemployed being passed on to social security, invalidity benefits and so on. Do the figures show an improvement, and what connection is there between the fall in numbers of unemployed and the numbers who have been passed on to social security?

Mr. Page: The hon. Member is asking me a hypothetical question and one which he knows I cannot answer off the cuff and which I would not try to answer. Unemployment has dropped substantially and not merely because of the upturn in the national economy. There is an improvement in the Northern Region in its own right.

Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): The Minister is being as preposterous over the regional figures as was the Secretary of State over the national figures. If a Government allow unemployment to rise to 1 million and then reduce it to 600,000, and if they allow unemployment in the Northern Region to rise to 100,000 and then they reduce it to 61,000, is it not a preposterous cheek to claim that that is a success?

Mr. Page: It would indeed be a preposterous cheek if that had been the case, but it is not. The figure is now the same as it was in early 1970, but then it was rising and now it is falling.
The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring mentioned that 50,000 people were unemployed and only 5,000 of them were skilled. This is a problem we are endeavouring to put right by the extension of Government training centres to a further 1,600 places. This has helped to resettle redundant men and to cope with the shortage of skilled labour, and it will help still further when the current extensions are completed and the centres can train nearly 3,500 workers in 40 different trades. That is what is happening in the Government training centres. Add to that the technical colleges and the private firms training capacity and we calculate that there will be 6,000 to 7,000 trainees passing through annually.
Unfortunately, the inconsistency of the trade union attitude towards Government training centres is a hindrance. On Tyneside and in Cumbria trade unions will not

accept trainees in the fitting and turning trades, yet in the building and construction trades the unions are giving encouragement to the GTCs. The northern area has not done badly out of the proportion of training places to the employed population. Over the whole of the country the proportion is one in 1,095. In the Northern Region it is as low as one in 488, so there has certainly been a substantial increase in training places.
The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring raised the question of the employment of civil servants in the Northern Region. The region has done pretty well out of Government dispersals. There are 11,000 staff at the Department of Health and Social Security at Longbenton. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members complaining. I am giving the figures of the numbers employed there. There are 1,800 employed in the Savings Department at Durham. There are 600 in the Department of Education and Science at Darlington. Three thousand seven hundred non-industrial Civil Service posts have been dispersed to the Northern Region in the last 10 years, and further dispersals of 700 posts are in the pipeline.

Mr. Urwin: How many civil servants have been dispersed into the Northern Region since June 1970? Will the Minister also tell us when he proposes to take action to fill the vacuum created by the loss of the proposed PAYE centre with a potential 2,500 jobs in Washington?

Mr. Page: The hon. Member must be aware of the difficulty that the Civil Service is finding in recruiting within the area. The problem is quite clear from the administration which is there already. We must guard against putting too many Civil Service jobs there. [Interruption.] Newcastle at present has the largest number of Civil Service jobs of any city in the country outside London.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): Will the Minister give way? He is referring to a matter concerning my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that hon. Members will realise the number of people who are hoping to take part in the debate and will restrict their interventions accordingly. It is not a matter for the


Chair but it would be in the interests of the House to restrict interventions.

Mr. Rhodes: I am not one of those who have asked to speak in the debate. I merely ask the Minister to give way because he is talking about a large Civil Service complex in my constituency. Is the Minister aware that staff at the Civil Service centre who are not qualified have been laid off because of the surge of young people leaving school who are qualified, and coming forward for jobs? Jobs must be found for these young people but the Minister must admit that there is no shortage of skill in the area for the staffing of Civil Service Departments? His statement on that matter is a complete deception.

Mr. Page: It cannot be a deception when Newcastle has more civil servants than any other city outside London. One cannot go on dispersing civil servants into areas of that sort.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Shocking. Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Page: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I cannot give way to him when he is sitting down heckling me.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) has made a valid point that civil servants at Longbenton have been dismissed because they are unqualified, in spite of having given many years' service at Longbenton, because there is a surfeit of youngsters wanting jobs. I do not complain about the youngsters who want jobs. However, the Minister said that the Civil Service was having difficulty in attracting recruits. Will he withdraw that misleading statement?

Mr. Page: It is not a misleading statement. We expect the Hardman Report in a few days, and I hope that we shall discuss the matter in more depth when we have it before us. I am prepared to leave my statements for discussion when we have the report.
I return to the transport side. I should like to mention two interesting and exciting projects—the Tyneside rapid transit system and the possibility of the new crossing of the Tees. The Tyneside rapid transit system is the largest

project so far accepted for infrastructure grant, and the largest provincial urban transport scheme to be prepared in the United Kingdom this century. It involves 34 lines, with bus and rail services, electric trains, tunnels under Newcastle and Gateshead, a new bridge over the Tyne and 46 stations, building to start next year and, we hope, completion by 1979. There will be the creation of many jobs by its construction and a massive increase in employment possibilities by improved accessibility when it is completed.
With regard to the new crossing of the River Tees, we await the consultants' report on the preferred route, which I hope we shall have in August, so that there can then be further study.
There are many interesting and exciting projects on Teesside, including the Ekofisk oil terminal near Graythorpe, an £80 million scheme involving 2,000 jobs in its construction and 200–300 permanent jobs in its operation; an iron ore terminal at Redcar; the new potash and phosphates terminal at Tees Dock; the reclamation of Seal Sands for industrial development and the proposals to expand the European container traffic.
In other North-East coast ports there are similar exciting development projects in hand—the industrial sites on coal trade land and the expansion of the roll-on, roll-off facilities on the Tyne; and rebuilding of the, fish dock at North Shields, with a 60 per cent. grant from the Government. At Blyth there are the terminal facilities for the Alcan smelter, and at Sunderland there is Doxfords' covered ship factory at Pallion Yard. We have only recently received the Booz-Allen Report, which is being studied in connection with assistance to such schemes.
There are severe problems for certain other ports. In Workington and Hartlepool, we have adopted a new and exceptional way of dealing with the problems so that we can quickly bring expertise to bear on them. We have adopted the system of a task force to examine the issues quickly and act quickly on what is advised. At Workington there is the loss of iron ore imports as a result of the cessation of the steelmaking there, with the possible loss of 440 jobs, and the closure of the Solway Colliery, with the loss of 550 jobs. The


task force there has reported, and we hope to act on its recommendations as quickly as possible.
The same method has been adopted at Hartlepool. The task force has given its advice. We face the loss of perhaps nearly 3,000 steelmaking jobs there, but the task force has disclosed a number of manufacturing industries which may produce at least a thousand new jobs in the area.
We have then to look at the advancing road schemes, dock improvements, training and town improvements in Hartlepool.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a thousand new jobs. Will he bear in mind that there are 2,300 male unemployed in Hartlepool now, and that 2,450 will become unemployed in 1975? If we add those two figures together and take away the right hon. Gentleman's 1,000, we see that our net unemployment level increases considerably. On the right hon. Gentleman's figures, Hartlepool will have 4,000 people out of work by 1975.

Mr. Page: I am not minimising the problem. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. I just mentioned the round figure of a thousand which has been thrown up on first report by the task force to show that we are obtaining immediate value from the system we have adopted.
Perhaps I should now deal with the point about Kielder, which was raised by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring. I fully accept the urgent need of all the new industries within the North-East for a massive new water supply, and that Kielder could provide that supply. But the proposal is that we should create the biggest man-made lake in Europe by flooding seven miles of one of the most picturesque valleys in the country. One must be certain that there are no adequate alternatives before making such an irretrievable decision.
On a careful study of the evidence given at the inquiry—I have read through every word—it was clear that, although the alternatives had been argued, the expert evidence on their feasibility was incomplete. The time-scale of the need

for the water is such that there seemed to be sufficient time to obtain the complete evidence. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State decided to reopen the inquiry and obtain that evidence. When it is possible to set like by like, which was not possible in the course of that inquiry, my right hon. and learned Friend will give his decision, and the North-East will be assured of the water it needs within the necessary time.
I turn to other transport questions. I have mainly mentioned the roads, but there are problems with the railways. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries made it clear earlier this year that the Government are committed to continued support in general for the loss-making railways in the area. The contribution is about £3 million at present.
I have mentioned construction and new industries, but these must go hand in hard with the provision of new homes and new jobs; perhaps new homes a little in advance of new jobs. The renewal of industrial life must be preceded by the renewal of residential life.
The trouble with the house-building industry in the region is that in many parts it is already at full stretch. The success of the improvement grant system is partly to blame. As a result of the 75 per cent. grant for development areas, improvements are running at the rate of 56,000 a year, compared with less than a fifth of that rate four years ago. The Northern Region's share of approvals for local authority house improvements is a quarter of the total for England and Wales. That means that this one region, out of nine in England and Wales, has had improvements to the extent of a quarter of the total.
New house completions—19,500 for 1972—are recovering dramatically. I am glad to see that in that progress in house-building there has been attention to design. The region walked off with more medals than any other in last year's RIBA competition for house designs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the meeting called by the Design Council that I had the honour to address last week. It was very gratifying that the Design Council chose to have its annual presentation in the Northern Region, at the Civic Centre in


Sunderland, where His Royal Highness Prince Philip presented the awards.
Housing must be backed up by adequate social services. Fortunately, the recently announced restrictions on public expenditure do not apply to the health and personal social services in any area. In fact, hospitals in the Northern Region have done better than the average hospital in England.
I was surprised to learn, when I looked at the figures, that the Northern Region contains only just over 7 per cent. of the school population of England. However, the allocation of national resources for schools in the Northern Region is very much more than 7 per cent. of the whole. That is deservedly so because the school accommodation in the area is in general outdated. The score of 114 schools to be built in the region by 1976 should go a long way to replace outdated school accommodation.
Last January I had the honour to preside over a meeting of the Northern Region Economic Planning Council and the 14 local planning authorities forming the North Regional Planning Committee. The meeting was to launch a study by a professional team leading to the production of a regional strategy. That is a strategy which will provide a rational framework for local and national decisions for the Northern Region—investment decisions particularly—and which will provide guidelines for the local planning authority's structure plans.
I found no depression amongst those at the meeting either about the future of the Northern Region or about the assistance given by central Government. I admit that the North East Development Council was not present. It has chosen to circulate to right hon. and hon. Members a paper crying "Woe, woe." I should have thought that a development council should be preaching boom and not doom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
If we continue with the present programme of construction work on roads, rail and ports, of attracting new industries to the region, of pressing on with the housing and improvement progress that has already been made, of expanding and renewing the hospitals and schools, and of grasping the nettle quickly when difficult problems arise and when industries

in the area have to close, I am sure that it it will be a boom story for the Northern Region.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman has been given an impossible task. I think that he knows in his heart that the material which he has presented in support of the Government amendment is weak.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Teesside in passing and gave a list of development items. He seemed to indicate that the Government have been responsible for those developments. That is quite untrue, except in the case of the British Steel complex. The Government can claim no credit for any other development. All the people who are knowledgeable about the steel industry were agreed that the only economic site where the complex could have been put was on Teesside.
The right hon. Gentleman in passing referred to an educational development in the North-East. I wonder whether he is aware that on Teesside there are still more children per teacher per class than in any other part of England, Wales or Scotland. Further, why did he not mention Teesside in connection with the dispersal of civil servants? I know why he did not do so. There is still no Government office of substance in the area. I hope that when the Hardman Report comes out next week we shall get some result. I should have been pleased if the right hon. Gentleman had been in a position to tell us something about that matter.
The Prime Minister and about half of the Cabinet have at one time or other been to Teesside. For what good they have done they might as well have stayed away. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies), when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said that he was well aware that the industrial problems of the North-East were deep-seated and could not be abolished as though by a magic wand. We did not expect him to produce a magic wand but we expected some help. During the right hon. Gentleman's period of office, we received precious little help.
The right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), when Secretary of State


for Employment, opened a Government training centre. We were very glad that he was able to do so. When he opened the centre and when he was in the area subsequently he was approached about a scheme which has been operated by the Teesside Youth Employment officer and the personnel officer of ICI. In Teesside, as is well known, young men and women find it difficult to get jobs. Those with lower academic standards tend to roam the streets. The two gentlemen I have mentioned decided to produce a craft scheme in addition to the ICI training scheme. Young men can join this scheme for 12 weeks. They should go for longer. Pressure has been put on the Ministry to allow the scheme to run over a longer period. Young men are taught the basic elements of a craft. At the end of 12 weeks they are able to do jobs. They can undertake jobs, for example, at their friends' homes and some can find employment. That is a good scheme. But what is the Secretary of State for Employment doing? He is doing nothing about it.
I am told by one person who is knowledgeable about these matters that an application for the scheme to be extended has been under consideration for some time and as yet no answer is forthcoming. Perhaps we were hoping for too much in expecting such help from the present Secretary of State for Employment.
The Minister for Industrial Development has said that, as far as possible, decisions on Government assistance for industrial development in the North-East should be taken in the North-East. I could not agree with him more. Perhaps he will tell us when decisions on industrial development in the North-East will take place.
Industrial development in the North-East will be held back, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), by the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment. But for his action the Kielder Dam could have been in operation in April of this year. The Northern Region's thirst for water is an urgent problem.
The Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has declined to make a grant to provide Teesside with a new fruit, vegetable and flower market. The need arose because of the clearance of slums and derelict areas. I am assured

by knowledgeable people that if a new central market at Teesside is not forthcoming, not only will the cost of goods go up but produce such as fruit and vegetables will be less fresh. That is not a pleasant outlook for those on Teesside.
The people of Teesside have precious little for which to thank the Government. The area wants many things. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) will mention the university. In the hope that he or one of my other hon. Friends will do so, I shall not pursue that matter further. The fact is that far too little has been done not only on Teesside but in the North as a whole to overcome our basic problems.
To replace the decaying houses, roads and schools is a heavy burden. The average personal income in the North-East is only 79 per cent. of the national average. The people of the North-East prefer to be self-reliant but the handicaps caused by being pioneers of the industrial revolution are too great to be overcome without Government assistance.
If the North-East is to be brought up to the higher standard prevailing in other parts of the country, what is needed is a Cabinet Minister with a Department of State to back him. It can be argued that this Government and the Labour Government have been more generous to development areas than other parts of the country, but that is not good enough, because to overcome the difficulties caused by the North-East having been the cradle of industrial development, substantial Government grants are required. After all, the basic wealth of the country comes from these industrial areas.
There are many other problems in addition to those which I have mentioned. For example, the environmental hazards in the North are higher than in many other large areas of the country. Because of the heavy concentration of industry on Teesside, it has a larger level of pollution. Firms such as ICI, the British Steel Corporation, Head Wrightson, Power Gas and Warner Brothers, and many others, spend large sums of money in trying to control pollution of the area caused by their manufactures. They are under constant pressure from myself and other Teesside Members of Parliament, and I know that these firms sometimes spend


beyond what they consider to be reasonable economic limits.
It is essential for these firms to produce as cheaply as possible, because most of them are exporters on which the country's economy and success depends. The Government should consider creating a special fund, and other parts of the country ought not to mind being taxed additionally in order that Government grants—not loans—can be given to help overcome the environmental problems in areas such as the North-East Region. The same is true of the waterways. The River Tees is heavily contaminated by industrial effluent and to put the entire burden on port, harbour and local authorities is unjustified. Grants, not loans, are required to meet the cost, which can amount to millions of pounds.
One must recognise that the North-East cannot benefit unless investment improves in the country as a whole. We are told that this is now taking place. But we have not yet seen in the North-East the effects of this measure of economic development, in which we should benefit substantially, as we have a right to expect. For example, because of rationalisation—and one cannot argue against that if it will make industry more efficient—Teesside has lost about 10,000 jobs, which can never be replaced. The unemployment must be soaked up, and for this purpose it is not only necessary to encourage new industry to come to Teesside but the Government must consider giving grants to expand existing industry.
In looking forward, we must face the fact that, although we have argued for employment now, the time is not too distant when work will be a privilege in this age of automation, computers and technical improvements. It is inevitable that there will be fewer jobs, not only in the North-East but in the country generally. This must compel the Government and all of us to consider now how to bring about shorter working hours, longer holidays and a shorter working life. People will retire earlier and provision will have to be made for further education slanted towards helping them to enjoy their increased leisure, to travel, to understand the arts and culture, and to learn new crafts. In the meantime, we must recognise that our im-

mediate and urgent problem is to achieve for the North-East the same opportunities and standards as are enjoyed in the rest of the country.

5.8 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: When I seek to catch your eye in a debate of this kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find myself in a slight quandary, because the problems of the North-East are so vast and require so much attention. I find myself wishing to discuss certain proposals and to find out from the Government what progress is being made. Yet at the same time, as a very good supporter of the Government, I feel that it ought to be my opportunity to discuss the relative proposals and actions of my Government compared with those of the Labour Party. Inevitably, however, what I have to say often carries with it some criticism of my own Government. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friends will forgive me if I do criticise them, because I do so from the basis, "Thank God, the Labour Party is not in power and the Conservative Party is." I hope that my right hon. Friends will accept that as my view.
I am most interested in the motion. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) did his best, as he always does. But his best does not get us very far. He concentrated, quite naturally, on the industrial problems and did not mention the social services aspect, although that is included in the terms of the motion. That was very reasonable of him. Sometimes the Opposition show a little sense—not always—and it was certainly sensible of the hon. Gentleman not to mention the social services aspect because we could massacre the Opposition by pointing out the progress made in the social services since the present Government took office. It was very wise of the hon. Gentleman not to enter into that aspect.
However, I often feel that when we are discussing such problems some good ideas do come from the Opposition. Much better ideas come from the Conservative Party but the Opposition do have some good ideas, and I always pay my tribute to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for his Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which has been implemented by the


present Government. That is an example of a very proper co-operation. If Labour Members had embarked on that part of the motion dealing with social security we could have massacred them. I do not want to massacre them on this occasion. It is, however, important to discuss the problems of industry.
I was in the House of Commons during the last war. When war was declared, the assessment was that the enemy would bomb the North-East Coast and part of Scotland. The edict went forth that we were to have no new industry or development. We were not able to build new schools and things like that. That has added very much to our problems. Any Government ought to give us the maximum amount of money.
A place such as Birmingham was extremely lucky—although I am glad that I do not have to represent it in the House of Commons. During the war much of the new development which helped us in our victory was carried out in Birmingham. It had the development of the motor car, radio and television industries and, a little further north, there was the development of the man-made fibre industry.
The people of the North-East Coast have a great genius for invention. We could have made a great contribution which would have helped our area as well as the country. Most people in the House today do not have that background knowledge, but it is worth emphasising.
I do not agree with what is said in Cambridge or elsewhere about regional employment premium. I have my own views. At the last General Election I did not subscribe to the policy set out in our manifesto. I left myself free to do what I thought was right when the time came. I am not against the Government's policy on this but they are inclined to talk in general terms.
Before the Government finally take their decision they ought to make an analysis of the small businesses on Tyneside, Teesside and in Cumberland to discover what their problems will be if REP is phased out. Among the many good speeches that have been made recently by members of my Government has been one dealing with small businesses. I am in close touch with what goes on in Tyne-

side and I know that there are many small businesses there which in recent years would have been making a loss but for regional employment premium. Governments have to present an overall policy without filling in the detail. I am not prepared to support the Government in phasing out regional employment premium until that analysis has been made to my satisfaction.
If that phasing out is disadvantageous to the small businesses it may be possible to withdraw the premium from some areas and industries while at the same time maintaining it for others until they are in a position, under a Conservative Government, to do without it. I am certain that we shall win the next General Election. I know that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring kept talking about "when we win". His party has not won yet and I do not think it will. If small businesses cannot operate without the premium I want to know what the Government intend to do to ensure that these businesses carry on. I beg the Government to pay some attention to those who are in close touch with small businesses.
I have a great admiration for the Secretary of State for the Environment but sometimes when I like Ministers that does not mean that I like their policies. It was a little unwise of my right hon. and learned Friend to embark on the Kielder project. He said that flooding the Kielder Valley would destroy a lovely valley. I am years older than he is and I do not suppose that anyone else in this House has walked that valley, ridden on a bicycle up it, driven up it. During the war I used to go there quite often because there was an establishment there where we used to send our Naval personnel to recover from some of the terrible experiences they suffered during the war. I know the valley very well indeed. I have come to the conclusion that my right hon. and learned Friend is a conservationist. He appreciates the wonderful constituency which he represents. But I have been in the House of Commons for a long time, and I have always fought to ensure the economic survival of the North-East Coast and the provision of jobs.
The Member for Houghton-le-Spring asked whether the Secretary of State for


Trade and Industry had made any representations about the Kielder project. Last Friday I attended a meeting of the North-East Development Council at which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a first-class speech. He was asked whether any representations had been made by his Department about the Kielder project and the provision of jobs. He answered that, although it was not his responsibility, his Department had made representations, and I was glad to hear him say that. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development who spoke this afternoon speaks for the environment and not for trade and industry.
I wonder whether hon Members have seen the beautiful new dam at Derwent Water, which has given a great deal of pleasure to sportsmen and the young. I see no reason why a similar beautiful dam cannot be constructed at Kielder. It was unwise of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development to embark on this subject. I could tear him to shreds. I am sometimes regarded as a rebel, and I enjoy being a rebel. I have asked to attend the inquiry to give evidence. I have sufficient evidence from industry to show that the industrialists and trade unions concerned are determined so far as is within their power that the Kielder project shall be accepted. Parliament usually comes to the right decision.
I have received from the CBI a list of the people who will be affected if the Kielder project is rejected. We have in the North the ICI, the river board, many big industries and the Scottish and Newcastle breweries. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider what a commotion there would be if the British working man were unable to get his beer because of a lack of water. I have a long list of important firms which have already made representations, and I have made representations on the subject to Lord Carrington. There seems to be no constitutional reason why I should not give evidence to the inquiry.
The new inspector who has been appointed, Sir Robert Scott, had a distinguished administrative career in the Far East. I am delighted that he has been appointed. Those who are familiar with his work know of his ability,

integrity and understanding. I do not think that we shall have any difficulty in explaining to him the needs of industry. I wonder how much knowledge the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Minister for Local Government and Development have of the industrial needs of the North.

Mr. Graham Page: The need for a new water supply for the North-East is not in question in any way. We want to see whether the need can be met by the alternative sites which were put forward, and we think that there is time to find out in the short period of the new inquiry.

Dame Irene Ward: That sounds a reasonable argument, but I know enough about civil servants—whom I very much admire—to know that they are often dogmatic. I also know about dogmatic Ministers, among whom I include the Secretary of State for the Environment. He is perfectly entitled to his opinion, but, having lived with an industrial background all my life, I prefer to be guided by the industrialists who know their own business.
I am terribly sorry about the few people who will lose their houses if the Kielder project goes through, but there is no reason why they should not be properly rehoused. The Secretary of State for the Environment has allowed an awful mess to be made of Newcastle. Many lovely houses have been pulled down and many splendid trees. The Secretary of State has allowed Eldon Square, of which I am very proud, to be spoiled.
When I start to fight, I fight and if I lose, I lose. The Secretary of State knows about all the representations that have been made. I will not go into detail now because I do not believe in stating my case until it is necessary to do so. I do not think that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Minister for Local Government and Development have much knowledge of the industrial needs of the north. They certainly do not have as much knowledge as that which was contained in the representations made by the river boards, the Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company and all the industries in my area in seeking to stress the anxiety which has been caused by the Government's decision.
I have in my Division one particularly good firm which won the Queen's Award for Industry, and we are very proud of that company. On the very occasion when the Secretary of State wrote to tell me that the Queen's Award had been given to that firm I received a letter from the firm——

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Too long!

Dame Irene Ward: I can talk for as long as I like. I know that certain hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want to hear me, but that does not worry me. The firm wrote to me in favour of the Kielder project. The firm wants to expand, but unless it receives an absolute assurance it will have to consider moving to Europe—perhaps to Belgium or to Holland. My comment, which perhaps was a little cynical, was that perhaps they would rather have been given the water to assist them to promote their activities and to help them in their expansion than to have been given the Queen's Award.
The North-East is benefiting under a Conservative Government, because we have produced plans for the area and we also have the economic resources in the Treasury to meet the various grants. I could probably spend much more money on various projects than many Labour Members, but the point is that I have faith in the Conservative Government because against the background of its economic and financial policies we can supply the money. Those policies are vastly superior to the sort of stupidities which often arise from the activities of various Labour Governments. I am happy to have had the opportunity of making these remarks, and I shall support the Government's amendment because it is in the best interests of the North-East.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. David Reed: I do not propose to take up the conversations of the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) about the Kielder Valley or to dwell for long on the speech made by the Minister for Local Government and Development. Both speakers went back to earlier years to find examples of projects in the Northern Region—projects which were started before I was born—to demonstrate

that a Conservative Government are able to bring real benefit to the region. I do not wish to go back many years to that sort of experience but want instead to get down to what this debate is really about.
I wish in my remarks to limit myself to saying that from an industrial point of view we must find the means to attract private enterprise investment into the Northern Region. Labour Members have many projects in mind which we should like to see brought into the region and which would involve public investment, but faced as we are with the present Conservative Government, there is very little point in spending much time on that topic.
On the question of private enterprise investment, I remember the words of a former boss of mine, the then chairman of the North-East Development Council. His view was that industry was a question of people and money working together and that we must persuade the Government to come up with the money to support our people. This is what successive Governments seem to have done over the last 10 or 15 years. There have been various forms of stick-and-carrot policies aimed at attracting industry to the Northern Region and other development areas. One of our criticisms of the present Government is that they seem to have weakened both the stick and the carrot at the same time.
I want to concentrate on the other side of the argument, and that is the question of having the right sort of skilled people in the Northern Region. Even with the advent of the Conservative Government's Industry Act, the estimated figure to be spent on industrial incentives in the development regions is £314 million. Up to a point the investment incentive argument is being dealt with, but what is not being tackled is the question of the provision of skilled labour and training facilities in the Northern Region. With over 50,000 men unemployed in the region, it must be remembered that only about 10 per cent. have skills to offer to new industry. Despite what was said by the Minister for Local Government and Development about the expansion of Government training centre places, GTCs, technical colleges and all the rest, including private industrial training, there will be a throughput of only 6,000 people per


year as a result of all the schemes lumped together—and that is not enough.
I should like to see the Government taking a much more sophisticated approach to training, to the business of finding which skills will be in demand in the coming years and to providing places for people to be trained. A useful start to such an exercise would be to carry out a scheme such as that which was conducted by the consultants who produced the Leyland-Chorley development plan. In that plan the consultants took the existing industrial base of the area and carried out an analysis to try to discover what investment would be likely to be attracted in future. They used an industrial complex analysis to demonstrate clearly the sort of new industry that was likely to be attracted. I should like to see such an exercise carried out for the Northern Region as a whole.
For far too long in the region we have accepted indiscriminate investment on the basis that it is better than nothing. From the long-term point of view that is not the right approach. I should like to see some forward thinking being carried out in terms of the industrial future in the region so that it can be translated into the training sphere and so that we shall know the sort of skills which will be needed in the future.
I wish to put forward one specific case related to my constituency in which such an exercise would be valuable. There is one operating pit in my constituency, at Fishburn. It is a short-life pit which, because of its geological condition, has probably three or four years of working left. There is no doubt in most people's minds that that pit must eventually close. The people who are employed in that pit amount to some 600 and they are a tremendous asset to the region as a whole. What worries me is that if that pit is allowed to close without some form of compensatory scheme, then that valuable asset of labour will be dissipated and we shall never be able to recreate it.
The cost to central government of running down that pit, in terms of social security and similar benefits, would probably be in the region of £500,000 to £750,000 a year. If those workers are not enabled to find new employment soon after the pit closes, then there will

be an enormous loss unless some sort of compensation is built into the situation.
I return to the question of training. If the Government first carry out an industrial complex analysis of the region as a whole, we shall have a clearer idea of the kind of skills which will be needed. The Government could then phase in a training scheme and could use the Fishburn pit as a guinea-pig project to try to discover whether the coherent working force of 600 people in the area could be kept together for the benefit of the region. I think that such a scheme could work extremely well.
I envisage a mass training programme keyed in to a rundown at the pit. Such a programme would mean that 600 people in my constituency would escape the prospects of immediate redundancy. There are many attractions in such a scheme, including the availability of skilled labour in an area which may well attract new investment. There would be obvious benefits for the region as a whole and not merely for my constituents—although, of course, that aspect to me is of vital importance.
The Minister for Local Government and Development was somewhat snide in his remarks about the reaction of the trade union movement in the Northern Region to retraining schemes. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber. He might like to know that when I was in my constituency working out what I would say in this debate I talked to officials of the trade union movement with a view to obtaining their reactions to this new approach to industrial training. In every single case I was told, "Yes, we will accept it, given certain very minor safeguards". I also talked to the people themselves, especially to those employed in that pit. They, too, said that they would accept a scheme of that nature, again with very minor safeguards. The trade union movement now accepts the need for this kind of training to meet the requirements of industry in the future, and it does not behove the right hon. Gentleman to criticise it from a very inadequate knowledge of the current situation.
I appreciate that the proposed scheme is a departure and that there could be many snags which would have to be worked out in advance. But it is in an


area where new thinking is needed and where we need to start developing new and more sophisticated methods of training people in line with the real demand for them from industry. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that he intends to see whether it is possible to conduct a feasibility study in the area with a view to discovering whether a scheme of this kind can be introduced.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I first became a Member of this House in 1964. In all my years here it has been my experience whenever we have discussed the Northern Region to hear the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) making a marathon speech. Today has been no exception.
When we discuss the Northern Region there is always a tendency to concentrate on the north-east side of the region. We are apt to forget that the Northern Region stretches across to the Cumberland coast.
In what I have to say I make no apology for talking about parish pump politics. After all, it is the people in the region who count and, like other hon. Members, I was sent here to speak up for those whom I represent.
The area which I represent and the county of Cumberland as a whole have always been regarded as a low-wage earning area. Sometimes I wish that the Department would produce a table district by district so that we could see whether there was any truth in the supposition. It is accepted that ours is a low-wage earning area. That being the case, one of the problems facing Cumberland is the lack of job opportunities. There are no prospects, and many of our young people, after receiving their education, have to seek fresh pastures in other parts of the country with the result that their knowledge and skills are lost to their home county.
We hear a great deal from this Government about the way in which they are improving living standards in the Northern Region. That is the suggestion in their amendment today. However, Ministers ought to come to my part of the country. They will find there and in the county of Cumberland that living standards are not being improved but that, on the contrary, as the result of increased prices the people

of the area are having to go without a great deal and are finding life very difficult.
Recently in Cumberland we experienced the closure of the Solway Colliery. That in itself was a tragedy. I believe that it was a mistake that we shall regret in years to come. In the past, we have been dependent upon coal and, during the last war, the mining communities of Northumberland, Cumberland and Durham made a wonderful contribution to the war effort with their coal production. Now we have just closed Solway Colliery, which has left nearly 500 people in the area without jobs.
Coming nearer to my own part of the county, I wish to refer to Spadeadam, where we have a number of highly skilled technical personnel. A few weeks ago, like a bolt out of the blue, the management was told by the Government that Spadaedam was to be closed completely by the end of the year. I have been in correspondence with the Ministry of Defence about it. I hope that in the course of the debate some assurance will be given to those who are to be displaced as a result of the Spadeadam closure that job opportunities will be created for them in the area and that they will not be forced to leave as so many of our young people have had to do.
There are also rumours that the axe is to swing on the railways. I am not unmindful of the fact that ours is a very important railway centre. Last week the Guardian reported that the Government had decided to go ahead with certain branch line closures. If there is any truth in that report, I hope that there will be second thoughts. If the Carlisle-to-Whitehaven line and the Carlisle-to-Newcastle line are closed, the result will be redundancies on British Railways.
A couple of years ago, this Government decided to hand back to private enterprise the Carlisle District State Management Scheme. That in itself has left its problems in Carlisle. However, immediately after the sale was completed, some of the firms which bought premises put them on the market again. It is rumoured that properties have been sold at enhanced rates and that fat profits have been made. However, that is rumour. I have no evidence to substantiate it. The fact remains, though, that we are still suffering the effects of the Government's


decision to denationalise the Carlisle District State Management Scheme.
Since we are looking at the Northern Region as a whole, I hope that the Minister will help us to ensure that Cumberland is not allowed to die.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) for one reason above all others. As I told him earlier today, I cannot remember a debate on the Northern Region when he did not interrupt me after I had been speaking for no fewer than two minutes.

Mr. Ron Lewis: There is plenty of time.

Mr. Elliott: However, I imagine that we may depart from precedent today in that the hon. Gentleman preceded me for once. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech, that so often in debates we are inclined to think of the Northern Region as being solely the eastern half. Of course, there is the western half. Those of us who are of the Northern Region try to remember and take due account of it. We recognise to the full the problems associated with the Spadeadam development.
I should like to refer to the thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Sedge-field (Mr. David Reed) who preceded the hon. Member for Carlisle. That which he suggested is sound in theory. The hon. Gentleman began by suggesting that he could not go as far back as some hon. Members either in years of experience in this House or in years in which he has lived. That is so. As a comment on his suggestion of pre-thinking before 600 miners become redundant, the matter of training, and particularly retraining, is something that we have had to face in quite recent times. I can recall in my time in this House when there were merely 699 Government training places in the Northern Region and we had difficulty in filling them. That was not so many years ago. Indeed, it is not so many years ago that unskilled labour could find employment quite easily. Although we have known the enormous

need to increase our skills, this need has come upon us quite suddenly, and it is a problem with which we are not yet fully prepared to cope. Nevertheless, I found the hon. Gentleman's contribution most interesting.
One of the great benefits of such a debate as this is that emerging from it should be some forward thinking. An industrial complex analysis, as the hon. Gentleman called it, is something that we would all commend. It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman that in a debate of this nature a number of years ago I appealed to his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), when she had responsibility in this context, to instigate a full inquiry into the needs and reactions of new industrialists who had gone into development areas. I felt at that time, and still feel today, that we do not know enough about the problems of those who have accepted the invitation, have responded to the incentives to go to the development areas, and have found a variety of problems which I have found in visiting them. The new industrialists—I had an example of this last weekend—are finding considerable difficulty in obtaining the new and necessary skills for their developments.
The attitude of the trade union movement, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, is much better now. But, with respect to the trade union movement, there are those of us who remember when its attitude was extremely awkward, particularly regarding retraining. It was an attitude which one fully understood, but it was awkward nevertheless. I pay tribute to the trade union movement in this regard in that it has shown an enormous advance and improvement particularly in recent years.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) delivered a most thoughtful speech. I was pleased that he resurrected the ghost of a university of technology on Teesside. It is high time that we started thinking about that again. The right hon. Gentleman rightly emphasised the enormous burdens in our areas which are an inheritance of the industrial revolution.
I think that we might pause for a moment to appreciate to the full the promise of regional aid which will come from membership of the EEC. I am convinced that such areas as the north-east


of England will benefit enormously when the Community gets round, as it will, as its next big stage of development, to aid to areas which have out-of-date industrial plant, machinery and buildings. I am convinced that the Northern Region will benefit enormously when we get to that stage.

Mr. Rhodes: This question is not designed to embarrass the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that in priority terms it has been announced in both Strasbourg and Brussels that the three criteria for priority aid are the movement of labour out of an area, the per capita income, and the unemployment in the area? On those criteria, we in the North compare very well with the South of Italy, the South-West of France, parts of Scotland and parts of Ireland. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, in saying "when the Community gets round to it", is speaking with some inner knowledge that perhaps we shall not be in the first batch, but in a year or two or perhaps three or four years.

Mr. Elliott: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views on the Common Market in general and the Community's plans for development areas elsewhere. We have debated this matter on televsion and in other places. I am still, without pausing too long on the point, optimistic.

Mr. Rhodes: I hope the hon. Gentleman is right.

Mr. Elliott: I think that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East was right to take full note of technological advance. Although it is possibly casting forward into the future a little, I think that those of us who are here this afternoon will have to think more in terms of a shorter working week and and of technical advance and its effects on redundancy generally. Redundancy is an enormous problem of our time. At the annual meeting of the North-East Development Council in Newcastle on Friday of last week, it was a rather moving moment when the director, in presenting his report, said that he had talked just a few days previously to some good, honest working men on Teesside who had been made redundant for a second time. Those of us who have tried to study and follow the problems of our region for

some years do not need to have emphasised the psychological effect of being made redundant once. It was a disturbing thought that there are those still in the prime of life who have been made redundant twice. Therefore, we need to think more in terms of technological advance and its effect on redundancy and employment as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) made an extremely good contribution to the debate. I should like to take this opportunity, having worked with her so happily for many years, to congratulate her most warmly, as I am sure everyone in the House would wish, on the substantial honour that she has just obtained. It gave us all a great deal of pleasure.
This is one of many debates on the Northern Region in which I have taken part over some years. On this occasion I think that we should once again welcome the opportunity sensibly to discuss our region's continuing problems—but I must express dismay at the terms of the motion.
First, the past year has seen an enormous improvement in the affairs of the Northern Region. We have 20,000 fewer people unemployed, investment is flowing to us, and production is rising. The success of the Industry Act is already most spectacular. Again, if I may recall the North-East Development Council's annual meeting on Friday, the Secretary of State said that 40 new applications under the terms of the Industry Act had been made in the month of May alone. This, in addition to the other jobs which have come from this legislation, gives a promise of 3,000 extra jobs. Also, 32 factories and factory units have been allocated in the last six months. In other words, at last there is a bright prospect for the Northern Region.
I cannot remember taking part in any debate here on the Northern Region when the prospects have been better. Those prospects can be summed up no better than in the words of the Chairman of the North-East Development Council when, giving his report on Friday last, he said,
The prospects for the Tyne, the Tees and the Wear are brighter than they have been for many a year.
That is why, however much a discussion of our continuing problems is desirable, I


find the terms of the Opposition motion, to say the least, most surprising.
I am also dismayed because the motion does not help us in our region in one very important respect. For far too long we have derided our region and have suggested that the quality of life there is lower. I myself have for years advocated an end to what I believe the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) referred to as the "begging bowl" attitude. I have for years advocated an improvement generally in our approach to the nation's economic affairs by suggestion that the North-East of England has an enormous amount to contribute to our national good.
The amendment quite rightly refers to the vigorous policy of the present Government overcoming our region's problems and bringing us into economic and social balance with the rest of the country. But it cannot be said too often as a lesson from the past for the future that regional balance can be achieved only if the central economic policy of the Government of the day is working.
We cannot get any better illustration of the fact that grants and aid alone will never solve the problems of a development area than we had in the 6½ years of Labour Government because grants and aid were given then with the best will in the world and with all possible sincerity. I have never doubted the sincerity of Opposition Members in wanting to solve the region's problems, but it was no good pouring in grants and aid when the Government's central economic policy was not working. However, unpalatable it is to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite the hard fact is that from the dawning of that July morning in 1966 when the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) announced his freeze and squeeze, unemployment rose—as taxation rose—in the North of England. It has taken 2½years of Conservative Government—as taxation has fallen—to reverse that trend.
We need further to strengthen our position. It has already been stressed that shortage of skill in the Northern Region is at this time quite serious. No fewer than 32,000 of our unemployed have no skills, and principals of new industry having come to our region—and, as I say, I talked to one such principal only this

weekend—count this as a major problem which faces them in the development of their business and industry.
We cannot afford any complacency here. We need more training, more training places. For instance, does it not seem deplorable that we still have twice the national average of unemployment when we have 2,000 unfilled vacancies in the building industry alone? The building industry is just one example. There must be something we can do about it. The number of training places has increased dramatically in my time in the House but it must increase further. I make the suggestion to my right hon. Friend.
We also need more encouragement to firms to undertake their own training. Much more can be done in sponsored courses, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some encouragement in this respect. We need more area research and development into the needs of new industries, and we need more inquiry into the linking of knowledge in the educational system as a whole.
We also need more encouragement to be given to unemployed youth. In company with the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who I am pleased to see in his place, I took part in a recent BBC broadcast in Sunderland in a series called "Man Alive". There are many unemployed people in Sunderland, and I found it somewhat depressing to appreciate the level of self-sympathy existing there, not so much on the part of young people but on the part of fellow members of the panel, and I also found it distressing to realise that the young people of Sunderland—and of other places in the region—were unwilling and unhappy about going beyond the boundaries of Sunderland, to find employment. We do not want them to have to go too far but we must get over this feeling that the job must be brought to the very door of the unemployed person.
It will just not happen in that way. I can remember in early debates on our regional problems that hon. Members now in opposition but at another time on the Government side used to advocate a new industrial pattern in our region—a pattern of factories being constructed where the pits had been. That just will


not do, and we now all have to learn to adhere to the growth area complex. There are certain parts of the region to which new industry will come, and young people particularly have to realise that they must set forth from Sunderland and other places and go to that new industry, having fitted themselves with the required skills.
The northern part of our region, up on the borders of Northumberland, is badly served by Government training centres. For instance, an unemployed young person or a redundant person in the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed has to travel as far as Galashiels before reaching a Government training centre. The region needs more service industries, as we all appreciate, and we would like to show them that we have a great deal to offer. We welcome the decision of the Thorn heating firm to move from Crawley to Tyneside—a splendid example; the move of McFarlane Foods from Lincolnshire to The Hartlepools; and we very much welcome the increase in investment of the Ever-ready firm in its Tanfield-Lee complex.
We must make further effort to benefit to the full from the oil boom. In this respect I draw attention to an urgent problem which faces us, and to the surveys conducted by the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority. I know that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, also wish to draw this matter to the attention of the Government if he succeeds in catching your eye. That authority has expressed grave concern about shortages of land on Teesside. There is urgent and immediate need for reclamation of additional land for industry at the mouth of the Tees if we are to get full benefit from the Ekofisk development.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the sooner we have a survey of the land required there for industrial needs the better it will be. It is essential that a survey and immediate consultation should take place.

Mr. Elliott: I agree, and I hope that bringing this matter forward will mean that my right hon. Friend will take some note of it.
I join with those who have suggested that our region would very much welcome any dispersal to it of Government office personnel from the Metropolis. Nevertheless, having been fortunate enough, as was the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), to go on a deputation to the Minister concerned, I do not think that we should place very great hopes in this eventuality because the number of civil servants who can be dispersed to the region is not enormous. Nevertheless, there are possibilities, and we await the Hardman Report with enthusiasm and interest. Among other things, this debate should be used to express our desire to have offices of Government Departments in our region, if that is possible.
Finally, it would be wrong for the debate to pass without some expression of the dismay of some of our major concerns in the Northern Region at the possibility of the alternative Government nationalising major businesses. For firms such as Swan Hunter and Austin Pickersgill, for all firms associated with the North Sea oil industries, proposals by an alternative Government about public ownership can only be wholly discouraging at a time when they need every encouragement.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Wiley: I shall not be provoked by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) as I am anxious to be brief and to afford some of my colleagues an opportunity that they might otherwise miss.
First, for the reasons given by the Minister and others, I think that the outlook for the North-East Development Area is probably more promising than that for any other development area. But that is not the issue. The point at issue is the Government's complacency. What worries me is that the Minister refers with satisfaction to a level of unemployment that is quite intolerable. We are not prepared to hear this from Ministers who do not represent constituencies in development areas.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke with equal complacency about training. I should have thought that it was obvious to anyone that the fact that nine out of 10 of the men unemployed in the region


have either no skills or skills that are redundant is a very grave discouragement to industry coming to the North-East. We should tackle this problem with a determination which reflects our determination to bring work to the North-East Coast.
Similarly, I complain about the relaxed attitude of the Government towards development area policy. We have repeatedly heard this. It is a recurring pattern. When things are very bad we are told that we cannot do anything because it is impossible to attract industry to a development area; but when there is an upturn we are told that we need not do anything because things are in any case going very well. That is the dilemma. This is the time when development area policy is most important and must be made effective.
I mention one or two further points merely as headings. It is very important to remove any uncertainty about regional employment premium. The Government talked about phasing out REP next year. We must have some certainty about what is going to be done because the one thing that discourages industry is uncertainty.
The same applies in relation to the Common Market. I believe that we shall benefit and that the region will be advantaged by our membership of the Common Market. I know that this is not only in the hands of the Government, but as long as there is uncertainty, industry will be discouraged. Industry will put off and procastinate.
Two aspects of development area policy are increasing in importance and it is recognised that they ought to become much more significant. The first is the importance of service industries and the second is the importance of office employment. We are told that we shall be getting the Hardman Report in a few days. We are also led to believe that it will not be a very encouraging report. Let us have it as soon as possible and let us get effective Government action as soon as possible.
My main purpose is to call attention to the shipbuilding industry. Shipbuilding is very much in the same position as development area policy. It is a cyclical industry. When things improve we are told that all is well and that we need not

do anything. That is exactly what happened about Geddes. We no sooner start to congratulate ourselves on the fact that we are implementing Geddes than we are congratulating ourselves that there is no need to do anything when the order books are full. It is important that we have the Booz-Allen Report when we have a boost in the order books. We should recognise the basic importance of Booz-Allen, which is saying to the industry that whereas hitherto it has emerged from each boom relatively worse off than it was prior to the boom, this time it will emerge absolutely worse off. It warns us that whatever aid is given to the industry there will be substantial redundancy.
I have previously recognised the interest which the Minister for Industrial Development has shown in the Sunderland shipyards. I now beg him to come to an early decision. In our last debate on the subject six months ago, the Secretary of State said that there was an agreed formula and that we would have a speedy decision. We have been waiting for Booz-Allen, but we have not got Booz-Allen and we need a decision. I cannot complain that we have been seriously prejudiced during our wait of six months by this lack of decision, but we will be if there is any further delay. We cannot wait any longer.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) mentioned in our previous debate the question of the marine engine Seahorse. Equally, we need a decision about that. These two matters are vitally important in the context of development area policy and of shipbuilding. I hope that we have a decision very soon.
The other consequence that follows from this is that we must get every patent obvious support from the Government to get British Leyland into the North-East Coast, preferably in the area between the mouths of the Tyne and the Wear. As Booz-Allen points out, the whole structure of shipbuilding has been perverted because massive Government aid has gone into three of the eight major yards in this country. The further significance of the Booz-Allen Report is that unless something is done, if things are left as they are, this will probably affect the future of British shipbuilding to the detriment of the North-East Coast. As we are told in


this report that there will be redundancies and the report repeatedly points out that Government money has been poured into three yards in particular and that the North-East is the only shipbuilding district which has not had this Government support, the least that we are entitled to claim is that support now. We are entitled to special and exceptional aid to persuade British Leyland to come to the North-East Coast. I hope that the Government will make it clear that they are trying to do that.
Finally, although we have been talking in economic terms, the real state of affairs in the North-East is found in social terms. It is the social differences. The average wage is far less in the North-East than it is in the South-East. Every indicator of affluence, except one or two which illustrate the overcrowding of the South-East Coast, shows that the North-East Coast is a deprived region. We are tackling a question of two nations. That is why it is desperately important that now that the Government have the opportunity they should take it.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: I very much endorse what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The fact that we can see that conditions are better in the North-East than they have been for some years does not mean that there should be any let-up. On the contrary, the next three, four or five years may provide the very oportunity which was lacking during the 1960s.
In a debate of this kind we all suffer from a kind of schizophrenia. On the one hand, we want to make the case for the North-East and the Northern Region as a whole. On the other hand, all of us who live there or whose constituencies are there know that there is a great deal to recommend the region. There is sometimes an inclination to be cautious in pressing our case against the Government on the ground that this might somehow prejudice the area which we represent. But, on the contrary, with the very positive credits which stand in the balance sheet, there is nothing inconsistent in urging upon the Government a very firm priority in the period immediately ahead. My concern is that a euphoria about growing manufacturing investment, if this is

maintained, about the Chancellor achieving—for a short time at least—his 5 per cent. growth, may lead others in the Government, if not the right hon. Gentleman, to urge strongly that the North-East and other regions no longer require priority.
This has happened before. We know that from the mid-1930s right through until the late 1940s attention was paid by successive Governments—grudgingly by some, enthusiastically by others—to taking work to the workers, in the then familiar phrase. The plain fact is that in the 1950s Governments were so conscious of the extent to which standards of living were rising because of the very different post-war environment that they believed that the regional problem no longer existed. So at the end of the 1950s the disequilibrium between the development regions and the rest of the country was precisely the same as at the end of the 1940s.
I go further. In 1950 there was a real chance that within 10, perhaps 20 years—I know that seems a long period, but the problem was deep-seated—we could cure the differential disability of the Northern Region. Then failure throughout the 1950s set back the hope of changing the position for a substantial additional period. That is why I say now that I hope that there will be no slackness of endeavour, no break in the continuity, but that the Government, whatever their inadequacies, will continue to give the North-East the priority it deserves.
The key remains industrial development certificate policy. Already there has been a dangerous relaxation. We all know the pressures to which the Secretary of State will be subject. The temptation will be to allow further relaxation in the Midlands and the South-East as the necessary price to maintain 5 per cent. growth. It will be put to the Secretary of State that because the unemployment problem is not so acute in the Northern Region or in Scotland or in Wales and because industrialists are pressing very strongly for IDCs for the Midlands and the South-East, there can be further relaxation. I hope that the Minister, and through the Minister the Secretary of State, will be brutally tough. There is no better measure of the seriousness of purpose of the Government than their continued control of IBC policy.
Next—this has been mentioned by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I wish to emphasise the point again—there is no doubt that all informed opinion takes the view that the regional employment premium makes a larger positive contribution than any other incentive to maintaining employment. I hope that the Government will not only change their minds about phasing it out but will argue strongly—I would not deny the necessity for this—that a regional policy in which a regional employment premium plays its part is not incompatible with competition policy within the European Economic Community. This Government would be in a much better position to argue in Brussels for a regional employment premium or the equivalent if they made clear that they had changed their minds and wished to maintain one at home.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) referred to a number of specific concerns on Teesside. I endorse them all. I want to ask the Minister first, as his colleague in opening the debate sought to make a point about the Civil Service being unable to recruit in the North-East, how many vacancies there are on Teesside which the Civil Service is unable to fill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in winding up will make clear that, whatever the circumstances may be on Tyneside—and my hon. Friends dispute the information given to the House earlier—circumstances are very different on Teesside and that we can claim legitimately that we can have no significant employment of Government Departments.
Secondly, I support what my right hon. Friend said about youth training. There is an inadequate number of opportunities, particularly in semi-skilled occupations, for young people, and I hope that the Government will support local endeavour on this.
Thirdly, there is the question of the university. It is now 10 years since my then hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West and I put forward a plan for a university on Tyneside. We understood fully that events intervened and the estimates made of the need for university population meant that national resources could not best be used by creating a new university on Teesside. I

would not now raise the case if it seemed to me that that was still so, but I greatly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will continue to make representations to the Secretary of State for Education and Science that when the time comes to create a new wave of university places, Teeside will have a priority as the last of the major conurbations without a university.
My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) referred in his opening remarks to the possible rôle of public enterprise in the regeneration of the development areas. I will not be provoked by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) but I greatly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not reject a rôle fot public enterprise because to do so would be as doctrinaire as to assume that nationalisation provides all the answers to our economic and industrial problems.
For my part—I can only speak for myself—I see no reason why the nationalisation of ICI, for example, would contribute materially to the solution of slow growth and unemployment in the North-East. I am sure that there is much in the long-term investment plans of ICI, and perhaps something in its day-to-day management, with which I would quarrel. I am concerned about its apparent opposition to white-collar trade unionism. But to nationalise ICI today, tomorrow, or in the foreseeable future would be silly in terms of economic and social priorities, and I would oppose it.
I say that to enable the Minister to make it clear that he is equally undoctrinaire. If I reject a blanket approach to nationalisation in favour of recognising that public enterprise has a constructive rôle to play, I hope that the Minister will equally acknowledge that there is scope for public enterprise in dealing with the problems of the development areas.
I see much to commend it in the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) when he spoke of industrial complex analysis. I should like to see an attempt made, perhaps within the Industry Act, to consider the needs of sub-regions in the Northern Region in terms of investment and of manpower and to produce


plans upon which action could be taken. I do not ask for blueprints and tedious ministerial decisions, but a fast-moving and aggressive industrial operation. It is a mistake to assume that merchant banks and management consultants between them can deal with all the problems of small firms, which may have a very substantial contribution to make to employment and growth.
Secondly, on public enterprise, I hope that the existing nationalised industries—I think particularly of coal and steel—will not be checked in any way if they seek to diversify in ways which will provide further employment. If we can have private conglomerates I have never understood why we cannot have public conglomerates as well. There is a unique opportunity in the next 10 years to remedy for all time the problems of the Northern Region. I hope that the Government will seize it.

6.28 p.m.

Sir Paul Bryan: I start on a harmonious note by congratulating the Opposition on allotting one of their Supply Days to debating a regional subject. We had a similar debate last year on the Yorkshire and Humberside area. However, that occasion was spoiled to an extent, as this occasion is being spoilt to an extent, by a three-line Whip being imposed—in other words, by the attempt to turn regional policy into a political issue.
Anybody who has seriously followed regional policy over the years knows in his heart of hearts that this is absurd. Obviously Governments of both political complexions have made tremendous efforts to solve this highly intractible problem. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) said that many of the projects that are now coming to fruition were started by the Labour Government. This is no doubt true. Should the Labour Party ever come to power again, I dare say that the same type of speech could he made by one of my right hon, or hon. Friends. But I think the useful question is not "which party did best? ". It is how better to tackle the regional problems today which have persisted—I underline the word "persisted"—in face of massive efforts by successive Governments.
Whether the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) likes it or not, this is the week in which the national executive of the Labour Party has told an incredulous public that 25 major companies are going to be nationalised. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Member may well groan, but this is extremely serious. The public assume that the national executive is a body of standing, especially when its sayings are backed up by one of the leading Opposition speakers on industry—the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn).
I am not surprised that my successor at the Department of Employment, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) protested in a Sunday newspaper, because he of all people would certainly know how this sort of threat—for it is a threat—does damage the regions.

Mr. Leadbitter: Who is making party political points now? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that if he makes such a statement, if he is an honourable man, he will also say what the interpretation of that communication has been. In addition, he will bear in mind the views of the Leader of the Opposition, as well as what has been said by one of my hon. Friends on one aspect of that matter.

Sir P. Bryan: I am treating the hon. Member's intervention seriously. What does he think the attitude of ICI in the Northern Region is likely to be to this sort of policy? If ICI takes it seriously, is it going to believe that this is a policy which will encourage it to expand its business in the Northern Region? The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East frequently says that the working people should be consulted. What about those who work for ICI? Would they prefer their firm to be nationalised? I have had experience of this company mainly in connection with training, and I know that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East also has a high regard for it. I am talking about a very serious matter, and not mere politics.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, over the last few weeks, has been belabouring what he calls the multi-national companies. Those are the very companies that we are trying to get into the regions in order to bring employment to them. Go to Scotland, where I have been, and see IBM. That is the sort of company that we want in


the regions—a highly modern and sophisticated firm, paying high wages and giving good employment. Those people do not know our politics here but they know a threat of that sort. Is it likely to come about or is it not? That is a question which they seriously ask not merely as a debating point.
The Opposition are on weak ground in the timing of this debate. Surely, however biased one is, one must recognise that the Government are doing more than has ever been done before. The powers given to the Minister in the Industry Act are quite unprecedented. Look at the amount of money spent on infrastructure and the amount of effort put into training. The measures may or may not be exactly right, but nobody can deny that the effort is there on a scale as never before.
We know about the short-term results. Whether or not they are entirely attributable to our policies, the short-term results are clearly good. Unemployment is declining at a great speed.
I should like to read from the survey on Teesside in the Financial Times, which at least takes an extra-regional view. This is what it says:
Business is certainly picking up. The region has won its fight for a new steelworks, oil will almost certainly come to the Tees, bringing a variety of immediate and spin off jobs … and the number of inquiries last month from firms wanting to move to the region was the best for a very long time. When the new roads are complete (leading not only into Teesside but out into the splendid surrounding countryside), when the new buildings are up and when inroads have been made into the unemployment problem, Teesside might be able to forget about being a development area and look forward to becoming a bridgehead into Europe.
Hon. Members opposite must concede that great strides are being made, and surely this picture in the article is not one of a Government who simply do not care.
I leave the amendment and turn to ask the Minister for a progress report on some of the problems that have beset and baffled his predecessors for so long. If one tries to take a balanced view of this problem over the years, it is, as the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) implied, depressing that now, almost 40 years since the first special areas legislation of 1934, after the application to the development areas

of an increasing volume of legislation, finance, major efforts by local and central government, the same problems persist—the problems that we know so well and which are listed in the amendment—of low wages compared with other areas, comparatively high unemployment—by that I do not mean moderately high, but high in comparison with other parts of the country—comparatively poor housing and the consequent problems of abnormal emigration. These problems seem now as intractable as ever.
This does not mean that we should not have gone in for regional policies, or that they are futile. The situation would be disastrous without them. But it is worth reminding ourselves of the longterm reasons. We know of the run down of the traditional industries. We must bear in mind why the new industries did not come to the North. The reason was that they were no longer tied to mines or railways. The markets for the new industriesv—cars, consumer goods and the rest—were in the Midlands and the South. Apart from the rich markets being in the South and the Midlands, there are other attractions there. They have the banking and services of London. They have the major airport of this country, an advantage which I do not think is fully appreciated. It is not only the largest airport; it is the third largest port in the country, with a capacity for creating employment and skills around it. An additional fact is that communications in the South have been so much better. All these things added together have acted as a counter-magnet to the North and Wales which has been hard to resist.
The truth, as the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said, is that the only time we have been successful in attracting new industries to the development areas has been in a time of general boom and labour shortage.
What I should now like to hear from the Minister is how successful we are being now, at the beginning of this period of expansion, in creating employment and, secondly, what his plans are for prolonging this period of progress to a very much higher degree than ever before. I am confident that the period of expansion of the whole economy will be prolonged, but we want to get roots down in such a way that when a depression or a recession comes—as some day it must—the regions


shall have the roots to withstand it. I saw in The Times the other day that an official of the Yorkshire Regional Industrial Development Board said:
It was the policy of the Board to encourage companies that were Yorkshire controlled, using Yorkshire management. This was within the Board's concept of building up the region as a management centre with decision-taking headquarters. In turn this would spawn financial centres and legal centres to act as a counter-poise to the South-East.
That seems to me the direction in which he should be going. I should like to hear what thinking the Government are giving in that direction.
Finally, on the question of employment, I believe we will have to do far more to attract foreign business than we have in the past. There is a limit to the amount of foot-loose industry in this country. All progressive local authorities are trying to attract that limited total. Recently I have travelled around the world a great deal and I have been impressed by the entirely new attitude of national companies regarding erecting factories abroad. In Singapore there are five new factories owned by German companies, by British companies like Beechams and by the Japanese. They have gone there not because the labour is cheap. It is getting more expensive and soon it will be as expensive as ours. They are there in order to get their manufacturing operations near the market. These factories are easier to manage from afar now that air communications have become so efficient.
We will have to think far more in terms of attracting companies, for example from Japan, which have heavy reserves of currency but a shortage of labour and wage levels higher than ours. I believe that Sony has started up business in Wales. We need these companies and we should not be ashamed to need them. They can give good employment. The Germans are in the same position. They have the money and a labour shortage and we could do with some of their industry as well. These opportunities must be considered seriously.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. James Tinn: Twenty-eight years after the war, unemployment remains a major problem in the Northern Region, but it is also a national problem and I should like to concentrate

first on that aspect. It is a scandalous waste of our most valuable economic resource—labour—as well as an offence against human dignity. An active regional development policy, far from being a kind of charity dispensed from Whitehall at the expense of the taxpayer, is hard common sense from any point of view. As overheating has appeared in such areas as the South-East and the Midlands, successive Governments have applied the brakes before the development areas have ever been able to achieve full employment. As a result, the inherent productive resources, of these regions have never been fully used in peacetime.
The Cambridge Economic Policy Group, in its medium-term forecast, has already begun to warn that a sustained annual growth rate of 5 per cent. from 1972 to 1976 would require further devaluations in that period amounting to at least 30 per cent. According to its calculations, even if the fast growth policy were once again to be abandoned, as has happened so often in the past, and a 2 per cent. target were substituted, it would still involve unemployment rising again to 1 million—that miserable milestone of economic ineptitude that we have already experienced. Even so, the pound, it reckons, would fall to 2 dollars, or perhaps even lower.
If, as the group forecasts, unemployment is allowed to reach a national level of 2½per cent. and the balance of payments could be assumed to remain at least in a small surplus, output could grow at 3·3 per cent. per annum. But even for this dismal outcome to be achieved we should have to ensure that exports rose by at least 9 per cent. per annum in volume, and I doubt that we could have great confidence in being able to achieve that in present circumstances. That is a measure, in national terms, of the situation in which we find ourselves.
Let us consider the 2·5 per cent. figure and the lower target that is apparently more attainable. That was the figure attained in 1970. If we use that as the comparison it would mean that in the Northern Region unemployment would amount to 4·7 per cent., or nearly 62,000 people. However, what the forecasters do not always seem to realise when considering unemployment rates in national terms and relating them to national conditions, the balance of payments, and so on, is


that unemployed labour in the regions is already a heavy direct financial cost on the community. Selectively directed measures to bring this labour into production are not expensive in real terms and need not increase the inflationary or balance of payments problems. On the contrary, in the long and the short term, they help to solve them by increasing supply to a greater extent than they increase demand. That is why regional unemployment is not only a social crime but an economic nonsense.
Yet in this century the Northern Region has never been allowed to pull its weight, in peacetime. Our unemployment rate has been higher than in any other region of Great Britain, other than Northern Ireland, in any year since 1966, except for 1971, when Scotland achieved the dismal distinction of topping us by 0·1 per cent. Our problem is not unique, but nowhere else in the United Kingdom has it been felt more heavily or more persistently. It is our misfortune not to have a Cabinet Minister able to drive home the facts to his colleagues.
Even in the Northern Region we are already running into a shortage of skilled labour. Of our 50,000 unemployed only 5,000 have any industrial skill. That is why we find it a savage irony that only a short time ago Teesside MPs were pressing the Government to accept an offer of unused training capacity by large firms in the area which would have enabled at least some of the unemployed youth to gain the skills the nation needs. That sort of thing is so typical of the shortsightedness from which we have had to suffer. What price the Government's vaunted policy of selective help to those most in need? Who needed help more at that time than the unemployed youth of Teesside, help to gain the skills that the area and the country need?
On the contrary, the Government have actively worked against us. The arbitrary and pigheaded withdrawal of investment grants has endangered the only major industrial development in East Cleveland since the war—the Boulby Potash Mine—and still the Government are not giving that area the roads it needs for the industry it already has at Skinningrove, much less what it hopes to attract to Skelton and Loftus.
If the Government have finally and belatedly reversed the policy in some respects and, for instance, reintroduced the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation in a disguised form, they remain adamant that the REP must go, in spite of all the arguments from all sources and despite the fact that this is the one instrument of regional policy that encourages labour-intensive industries.
We on Teesside have suffered under both Governments from the failure of regional policies that have not avoided the trap of encouraging capital-intensive industries where it is work that is needed and the spurious prosperity, such as in oil and chemical plants which take up large areas of valuable land while making little or no contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem. We need to encourage labour-intensive industries. I have the gravest doubts about the hopes expressed of these oil and chemical plants. We have heard of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority expressing concern about the amount of land available. I hope that the Government will give any necessary aid to reclaiming land, but I also hope that the aid will not be squandered on storage farms for chemicals and oil which may be a few miles inland.
I hope that, instead, enough of the land will be kept in reserve for plant such as Leyland's, if Lord Stokes should decide to site a plant in this area. I take this opportunity of inviting Lord Stokes to Teesside to see what we have to offer. We have what I believe to be the unique coincidence of deep-water access, flat sites increased by reclamation and excellent labour relations, as seen in the activities of the Port Authority.
Very briefly—because others want to speak—I want finally to draw the Minister's attention to the recently published Annual Report of the National Ports Council. It refers to marine industrial development areas, or MIDAS, and sees the time scale for its introduction to these areas as being shortened because of technological developments that I have not time to discuss now but which are described in paragraph 44. Then, in paragraph 45, having said in the previous paragraph that the Tees is well situated in this respect, it says:
For these reasons the Council are disposed now to adopt a somewhat shorter time-horizon for what they regard as practical


MIDAS development and to concentrate attention on those areas already under development or where there are proposals for development, in particular the Tees-side, the Cromarty Firth and the Hunterston area of Ayrshire, all of which appear to the Council in different ways to offer unique potentialities for IMEG development in the next decade and a half.
I hope we may hear from the Minister some encouraging announcement about his intentions in this regard.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I start by saying that I get very tired of hearing leading Tory speakers telling us, all over the country at the weekends, that the economy booms and that in the development areas all will then be well again, and that in the North-East there is nothing to worry about because this clever Government have now got a boom coming. Apparently we are in the midst of a boom now. It amazes me that anyone should have the temerity to suggest that with 600,000 pairs of hands without work at present we are in the midst of a boom. If that is the midst of a boom there is something sadly wrong with this country. There are 600,000 unemployed in the country, and 10 per cent. of that number are in the Northern Region. There is something still very sadly wrong with the economy of the region.
We have been told by Tory Members this afternoon that unemployment is receding rapidly. They can have learned very little, if anything, from nature. If they had lived close by the banks of a tidal river, as I have all my life, they would have known that after a spring tide the tide recedes rapidly from its extremely high peak. That is precisely what is happening with unemployment at present. I am not being wise after the event, because it is now about 18 months since, in my constituency, I made a speech in which I said that this Government would let unemployment rocket to about the 1 million mark, and that the tide of unemployment would then inevitably recede as a spring tide does from its high peak. So unemployment has been reduced from 1 million to 600.000, but the Government have the temerity to claim, as I suggested they would, that this is a great victory for their policies. They do that in spite of the fact that in the Northern Region

unemployment is still in excess of what it was when the Government came to office in June 1970. The Minister is looking anxious. Does he want to intervene?

Mr. Chataway: I was just wondering what sort of time span the hon. Member has in mind as the likely delay between action being taken and its reflection in the unemployment figures. Does he think it is a year or 18 months, or that the effect is absolutely immediate? I assume from what he says that in spite of the fact that unemployment was rising steadily through the period of the last Parliament, and was on a rapidly escalating trend, he would regard the Labour Government as in no way responsible for any of the increase that followed.

Mr. Brown: Unemployment reached I million as a direct result of the policies pursued by this Government in the immediate post-June 1970 period, and the Minister cannot deny that.

Mr. Chataway: So the time scale in the hon. Member's mind is six months, or three months, is it?

Mr. Brown: It is not a question of six months or three months at all. I am not going to bandy words with the Minister. He knows well enough that Government policies determine the unemployment levels to a large extent.

Mr. Chataway: About 18 months later?

Mr. Brown: I am not going to be pinned down to 18 months or 12 months or six months. I remind the Minister, as my hon. Friends are reminding me, that it was his leader who was elected to office as Prime Miinster on a pledge to deal with unemployment at a stroke. If, indeed, the Minister is suggesting to me that it takes many months of Government action to produce results was not his right hon. Friend being damned dishonest in the election of 1970? Of course he was.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Member has not even read what was said.

Mr. Brown: I think we have gone on long enough discussing this issue. The point I was making to my constituents 18 months ago was that this Government


were quite prepared to insult the intelligence of the electorate by that sort of confidence trick, and we see it happening now.
I want to ask some specific questions of the Minister. I shall not refer at length to the special environmental assistance scheme—Operation Eyesore. None of us would deny that that scheme has been a tremendous benefit to our area, but we have more than our share of eyesores as a result of the Industrial Revolution, which has already been referred to by some of my colleagues, and we in the Northern Region are not likely to be able to undo in a short time all the evils of generations of haphazard industrial development.
I ask the Minister to give serious consideration, at least in the special development areas, to introducing or again extending this scheme. I know that he has extended it by three months, but it is not sufficient; it is just chicken feed. I hope the Government will see their way clear if not to make it a permanent arrangement at least to allow it to run on for some years to give the development areas time to catch up on clearing these eyesores. It is not good enough to extend it by only three months.
My second point is one that I have put to successive Ministers over and over again since 1970, as I did to Ministers of my own Government before 1970. It concerns the need for a major research and development organisation in the North—the only region without such an organisation. Within 30 miles of London, research and development organisations, many of them State-financed, are found like mushrooms. It is not right that there should be multitudes of them down here, in the already overheated South-East, when we know that a major research and development organisation has a tremendous spin-off effect in terms of ancillary industry and would be of great value in the Northern Region.
Swan Hunter, which has already been mentioned, is enjoying a boom. Its order books are full. But I am anxious for the future. When the shipbuilding industry has full order books there is a tendency to think that there is nothing to worry about, but now is the time and the opportunity for the Government to give

Swan Hunter an injection of funds to bring about some modernisation and rationalisation, so that at the end of the present long order book we shall be in a better position to compete in the already keen international competition for new shipping orders.
I do not want to dwell at length on Kielder, but the Secretary of State will go down in the North-East as the architect of industrial stagnation there. The Minister for Local Government and Development shakes his head, but it is not good enough simply to say that the North-East is doing better. Of course we are doing better than we were 12 or 18 months ago, but we have needs not just for today and tomorrow but for the day after tomorrow. That is what causes my concern about the water supply.
No Minister can put his hand on his heart and deny that the lamentable decision on Kielder water has not already deterred new industry from coming to the North-East. It is sad that the Secretary of State, who has the decision to make, represents a constituency where Kielder water will be situated. The general opinion in the North-East is that he has caved in to constituency pressures. That might be an unkind suggestion, but I would not disagree with many of the suggestions made in the area.
What distresses me more than anything is that the Secretary of State, with this tremendously important decision to make, cannot—or his Department cannot, though he must take responsibility—even organise a successful public inquiry. He arranged it to open next Monday and did not bother to find out that the inspector is fully engaged with previous engagements in his own home town. It is incredible——

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the facts. It was best to start the inquiry on 19th June, the earliest date that the inspector could manage, even if he was engaged elsewhere for a few days during that week, and then resume again on 26th June, rather than leave the inquiry to start on 26th June.

Mr. Brown: There is no question of misrepresentation. The Minister is confirming the novice way in which the Department approaches matters. It gets a ministerially-appointed inspector to


open the inquiry when the Minister knows well enough that the first day of a major inquiry is taken up simply with the formalities. Therefore, the inquiry will be opened and nothing will be done for another week until Sir Robert Scott returns from the hills of Scotland, where he has been cavorting about. No doubt he is entitled to do so, because he arranged it months ago, but it would have been far better if the Minister had accepted that Sir Robert had those engagements and had put back the inquiry for a week, rather than waste people's time in dealing with the formalities and then doing nothing for a week.

Mr. Page: I cannot leave the matter there. The first two days of an inquiry of this sort are spent in dealing with preliminaries, arranging the programme, and so on. Therefore, why not get rid of those first two days as early as possible? That is what we did by fixing the opening on 19th June.

Mr. Brown: I do not accept the Minister's half-hearted apology.

Mr. Page: It is not an apology at all.

Mr. Brown: If the position is as the Minister has stated it, why did not the Department tell the Northumbrian River Authority that the inquiry proper would not start until 26th June, and give it an extra week to provide its evidence, instead of its having only six weeks in which to prepare it?
The Minister mentioned the Newcastle-Carlisle road briefly. He said nothing more about it. He forgot about it, or else he must have thought that it was not worth saying anything about. I concede that the Hailsham plan laid the framework, but the Labour Government did massive work on roads in the North-East. As a result, we have the best local road scheme in Europe, but much remains to he done. Among the things that need to be carried out is the Newcastle-Carlisle road scheme, not least the Throckley-Horsley bypass, in my constituency, which should have been started several months ago. There is no sign of any action. My constituents and I wonder whether it will fall victim to the recently-announced spending cuts. It is nonsense for the Department to suggest that where public footpaths cross what, in effect, will

be a motorway, there should be a stile at each side of the dual carriageway. I am thinking of Footpath No. 33, in respect of which that is precisely what the Department suggests. I hope that the Minister will look into that.
I should have liked to say a great deal about roads, but many other hon. Members wish to speak, and I shall now conclude my speech.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. John Sutcliffe: A great deal of what I had intended to say seems to be common ground on both sides. We seem to be engaged in a great deal of shadow boxing.
One thing that has clearly emerged from the debate is that the motion does not mean what it appears to mean. It sets out to castigate the Government for their total lack of a positive regional policy. One would deduce that the motion was very critical of the Government, but we have heard sentiments that run somewhat as follows: that the situation is improving; that unemployment is down, and has been falling dramatically in the past few months; that registered vacancies have been rising, and have more than doubled since May 1972. Whereas in May 1970 there were six adults looking for every vacancy, and two years later there were 12, now there are four.
The Opposition seem to be saying, "Yes, shipbuilding orders are at a better level, steel is showing a recovery and engineering and allied industries are in a better way." The Opposition seem to accept that forecasts for new orders and output generally will be more buoyant in the months ahead than anyone could have conceived last autumn. They seem to be admitting that investment in the Northern Region has begun to show signs at last of moving forward.
A number of Opposition hon. Members have said, "This is good progress but this is the time to keep up that progress." We have been advised that the Government must not let up on their present policies. That seems to be a different line from the apparent critical line of the Opposition motion. That motion does not acknowledge by one word the progress which has been made over the last few months, which represents a remarkable change.
For at least three years I have had a sticker on my car which says, "Teesside—growth point of the North-East." I have no doubt that other hon. Members have displayed the same sticker. We have talked for a very long time about the potential of Teesside. It has always been a matter of the future. However, there is now a feeling that the prophecy is being fulfilled. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) quoted an extract from the Financial Times about the optimistic prospects for Teesside. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) said that the Government must not claim the credit for that situation. I do not mind where the credit lies. It is the fact that we are on our way that matters.
The Middlesbrough Evening Gazette reported last week:
The pessimists who have decried the strenuous efforts which have been made to bring prosperity back to the area are in for a black eye, for all the indications point to a boom the like of which Teesside has never seen.
It then goes on to refer to the £200 million steel complex, the £100 million oil terminal, the coming of Cleveland County and the bustling new shopping centres. The Middlesbrough Evening Gazette concludes:
all point the way to a period of unprecedented prosperity.
Let us hope that the local paper, which the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) has clearly read, is right.

Mr. Tinn: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) may have seen the statistical memorandum from the North-East Development Council. I draw his attention to the fact that the memorandum indicates that the ratio of unemployed men to vacancies is still 12 to one on Teesside. That is higher than the ratio at Tyneside or Wearside. We do not want so much wonderful piein-the-sky visions on the horizon. What about the position here and now?

Mr. Sutcliffe: I take the point which the hon. Member for Cleveland is making. I fully endorse what he said and I shall come later to the point which he made. But let us keen the matter in perspective. We must not consider only the oil terminal and the steel complex. The local Press has reported that ICI has

recently announced a multi-million pound investment project. Nor does such development relate only to Teesside. The North of England Development Council made it clear that in the last three months there has been considerable industrial expansion from the North Riding to the Scottish border. There has been expansion throughout the Northern Region. If the number of visiting industrialists is any indication of what is taking place, the prospects are good. Inquiries about prospective sites have doubled recently. In a full year the number of inquiry visits will be running at the rate of 294.
Also encouraging—the hon. Member for Cleveland mentioned this matter—is what the Government can do to decrease the misery and degradation of being unemployed. The hon. Gentleman referred to the social cost of unemployement. Under the Industry Act the Government, by means of selective assistance, have ensured that more firms in the Northern Region have received loans and grants. The total value of such assistance to the Northern Region amounts to about £2 million and is more than any region in the United Kingdom except Scotland. The Government, in doing something about the social cost of unemployment, are taking valuable action.
All hon. Members attach the greatest importance to the fact that the Government have at last understood the disastrous effect on regional policy of chopping and changing the measures and incentives applying to the regions or cutting them off altogether at the whim of Government or because of a change in the economic climate. The present assurance of continuity is of the utmost importance to any credible regional policy.
The message which has come from both sides of the House appears to be that progress is being made but that that is not enough. Although we are making progress we must now reinforce our regional measures. We should not let up on regional policy. There are few hon. Members who sit for constituencies in development areas who do not feel strongly that that must be the right message for the Government. That has been the message which has been hoisted during the debate.
To ensure that the change in the face of the Northern Region, which we hope is beginning to take place, is permanent,


there ate a number of things which many would like the Government to do. I find myself repeating various points which have already been made.
One of the matters about which I feel strongly is training. Industry is now in the most receptive mood ever for training. There are huge shortages building up of skilled craftsmen in the Northern Region and, I have no doubt, in other regions. It seems foolish in the extreme that we should cut back instead of expanding the opportunities for training. I say "cut back" because we have had notice of cuts in public expenditure. There have been many rumours. In effect, we have been told that such cuts will affect training. It has already been said—and I say it again because the matter needs emphasising—that there are in the Northern Region 45,000 unemployed men who have no skills, and that the annual throughput of Government training centres, technical colleges and private firms provides 6,000 trained personnel. This is far too great a gap and we need far more training to bridge it.
Although the expansion of the community industrial scheme is something which I welcome, because it combines employment for young people with improving the environment of the North, I would not welcome it if I thought that it was at the expense of extending training and increasing the use of available spare capacity, wherever it is, in the training of young people.
I made a plea on the Report stage of the Employment and Training Bill that consideration should be given to creating opportunities in training for as many young people—after leaving school and between the ages of 16 and 19—as we possibly can, because these are the people who may not have an academic bent but who could be given skills which could be of immense value in the Northern Region. Unemployment among the young in Teesside, and generally, is still very high—far too high.
I pressed some time ago, in an Adjournment debate that I was fortunate enough to be allotted, for a better analysis of unemployment and of the gap between unemployment and unfilled vacancies. It would help us to pursue more relevant measures towards resolving this problem if the Manpower

Agency, which is being set up, had a far better idea how many registered people are actively seeking work, what percentage are capable of working in modern industry, how many in the older age bracket could be retrained, and how many who have been retrained are offered employment. This is the kind of information which would greatly help us and would enable the Government to formulate an effective policy.
I will refer to the progress being made in building advance factories in the Northern Region. Seventeen of these factories are promised. I am particularly interested because two factories of 15,000 sq. ft. each are to be built in my constituency at Thornaby. I ask my right hon. Friend to say when these factories will be started and when they will he completed, because there is a great deal of inaction in respect of advance factory building and the uncertainty is undoubtedly hampering the efforts being made in the region to promote industry in the area.
I add my voice to those of so many others in the debate in making a plea for work in the service industries. When our economy in the Northern Region is lopsided—and the Government know this to be the case—and is geared to industrial development, unbalanced by white collar work, is it too late in the day to ask that the dispersal of the Civil Service should be a little more radical than one suspects it will be? I feel that it is important. It is an opportunity which will perhaps not come again for many years and which we shall very greatly regret missing. May we have some positive and specific incentives, which were omitted by the Industry Act, to give some hope of greater office dispersal into the region?
According to the North-East Development Council, only seven out of 50 major companies established in the region have their headquarters there. I have no doubt that if there were better encouragement from the Government to industry to move office work into developing areas, that work would be moved to a far greater extent than it is now.
Much has been said in the debate—and certainly by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—about the effect on the Northern Region


of ending the regional employment premium. I hope that the Government will seriously consider what has been said on both sides of the House, and especially the importance of not, for the anticipated loss of jobs, terminating the premium suddenly or without ensuring that employment is in some other way sufficiently bolstered for the anticipated loss of jobs to be offset within the context of the EEC.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) mentioned Operation Eyesore. There is no question that this Government initiative has been immensely valuable. The use to which funds have been put in the region, particularly in Teesside, which alone has spent over £1 million, is impressive. It reflects great credit on the Government and also on the efforts of local authorities in the region. Like the hon. Gentleman, I wish that, as long as there were worthwhile schemes to be approved, Operation Eyesore had been continued. I hope that there will be money for it again and that the impetus towards creating an altogether better environment will not be lost as a result of bringing the scheme to an end.
We cannot possibly be complacent as long as there is a rate of unemployment in the Northern Region higher than the rate in the more prosperous part of the country. We cannot possibly sit back or be smug as long as there is a continuing disparity in the level of income per head between the North and other development areas and the more prosperous areas of the country. I urge the Government to take the message of this debate and to see that regional policy is now geared up rather than allowed to slacken.
When shall we have in the Northern Region an effective regional body to devise and implement a regional strategy? My criticism of the document initiated by the Department of the Environment, at the moment called "An outline specification for a study of the Northern Region", is that it does nothing to unify regional policy functions of the two major Departments, Trade and Industry and Environment, and of the too-many other bodies which are working with far too little cohesion of effort in the same direction. It is not so much a positive regional policy

that we should be debating, in the terms of the motion; it is much more a positive regional body which we now most need.
I hope that this debate, if it serves no other purpose, will make the Government consider what steps can be taken towards a more positive policy for a concentrated effort within the region so that we do not overlap in our attempts to achieve success for our aspirations.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Woof: In following the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) I want to apply my mind to the meaning of the the motion before the House. I promise the hon. Member that I will not shadow box, to which he referred at the beginning of his speech. It is not too late to say that after the shivers and shocks that we experienced on 18th June 1970, after the television celebrities had demonstrated their euphoria to almost giddy heights. after countless newspapers had informed the world of their unrestricted glee at the downfall of the Labour Government, not least after the basket-shopping voters had helped the Tories to make a fundamental shift in the language of finance, one would have thought that we could now have sat back in comfort and ease and receive and taste with delight all the good things of life.
Whatever drummed-up explanations were made in the comforting thoughts, while completely and deliberately ignoring the underlying trends, it was evidently the view of how the electorate felt about being reassured on the hastening of transformation to improve the quality of life and brighter economic prospects. We have heard some rosy pictures painted this afternoon from the Financial Times about the wonderful things being done on Teesside. I assure the House that has not been fully applied to my constituency of Blaydon.
We know perfectly well that the state of the economy is always held to be one of the most powerful influences on the minds of people, particularly when they are faced with paying higher prices and when there is less money in the weekly income through jobs disappearing one after another.
In frequent conversations and communications which I had with many earnest and conscientious constituency


workers they have often asked me, "How is it that industrial development is so slow in the Blaydon area?" I have had to explain that when I have had the good fortune to speak in economic debates in this House, from both sides of the Chamber, I have endeavoured to concentrate attention on the restricted industrial development in Blaydon. I have appealed for appropriate measures to be taken to offset the serious lack of industrial occupation.
With great respect to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have many times left this honourable House thinking to myself that I might as well have talked to the cows in the field for all the notice that Ministers took of me. That even applied to Labour Ministers—I might as well be laceratingly frank about it, because it is true. To recount in detail the public misfortune which emanated from industrial slaughter and decay would take much more time than I wish to devote to the subject now.
However, I can say there has been a bewildering metamorphosis consequent on circumstances entailed by adverse changes in industrial activity. We always wish to recognise things in their true existence and what relative truths we have to face, and the truth is that practically in every aspect the main decayed industries in Blaydon have been so much localised and specialised, so much so, that in the daily experience of such rapid decline certain significant facts have caused understandable anxiety.
We realise that in any economic calamity, when upheavals bring worrying problems, the undeserved loss of livelihood spreads into all age groups. It is this disturbing thought that is one of the greatest dreads and aversions. As a consequence of natural apprehensions it will be found practical in some circumstances that migration to other regions tends to influence people's minds, to better themselves.
This involves fundamental decisions. Such breakaway steps, in many instances I do not doubt for a moment, seem to be justified. On this account it is perhaps correct to say that there are advantages and disadvantages in trying to acquire the material wants of life. Before any deductive interpretation can be made in this respect there remains the general induc-

tion of comparing populations in their geographical context with what they have to cope and contend with.
It is almost startling to be reminded of the great and varied contrast between the industrial growth in the south of England and areas such as the one that I have the honour to represent—where the livelihood of so many people is continually threatened by the shifting of the competitive system, posing, as it does, the most acute and economic social problems for the families concerned.
Unlike the nomadic tribes of the Arabian Desert who follow a pastoral life with the love of liberty to fold up their tents and disappear in the night, I must make the special point that it is not a question of the continuance of those deep laws of human nature involving people's habits and routine. It is that of necessity. Something more is required whereby the means of industrial readjustment to meet the challenge of changing conditions can be brought into existence.
What is at stake is the weekly livelihood and the worry accompanying the housekeeping revenue of families placed in adverse circumstances through the modern doctrine of economy in the long chain of serious events. This has been happening in Blaydon for many years. Such rapid changes which have a hurtful bearing on economic and social life prove to be the precursor of so much misfortune.
If we are to avoid frustration as a result of decaying industry, particularly at a time when we need all our energies to establish the British economy on a secure foundation in world trade and exchange, then assuming the foreknowledge that the present purpose of the Government is to promote recovery, there would be some consolation if some serious attempts were made to solve the under-utilisation of industrial labour, especially when men have to look to other avenues for employment, only to be impeded in their attempts through lack of alternative employment.
It necessarily follows, in trying to abridge this account of the vicissitudes and reaction in my constituency, that it is impossible to look round without perceiving how far-reaching is the process of change. Such large problems cannot escape the duties of hon. and right hon. Members in becoming more and more


preoccupied with all the immense issues ultimately involved.
Whatever else is disagreeable that puts us in the mood which disposes us to conceive what adversity means, first and foremost as a national necessity it is a time when we are continually being drilled that economic improvement must in the main be effected through massive expansion and that such a high rate of growth depends on the British people in the exercise of their responsibilities. With such a premium to be paid on vital needs and for what I have taken the trouble to outline for the desire of a fuller life and brisker existence are motives that are not to be deplored or deprecated.
It has often been asked whether economics is more correctly described as a science or an art. I would not know the difference between them, but I believe that the art of good government lies in ensuring that industry should gradually be replaced so that the productive capacity of all those affected can be exerted to the full. I therefore appeal to the Government once again to exercise their responsibility for much greater and valuable co-ordination and co-operation with the North-East Development Council, to be equally shared by public interest, from which any industrial development would play a major part in promoting the prospects of employment opportunities in the Blaydon area.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: As is customary, my hon. Friend the Member for Blavdon (Mr. Woof) has torn the guts out of the subject. He is saying that until this nation begins to devote, through the Press, the media and Parliament, as much attention to the loss which arises from unemployment as is now devoted to the days lost through strikes we shall not have done our duty. If we recognise that there is no wealth except that which comes from work, then the 600,000 people who are denied the dignity and self-respect which come from work are not only themselves suffering but are also reducing the total wealth of the community.
I want to deal with some relevant constituency matters. First, I welcome the community work project. While it is second best to being able to offer worthwhile prospects to boys and girls, it is

better than the Government standing on the touch-line doing nothing, with these boys and girls knowing all the frustration that comes from not having a place in society.
Secondly, there are major industries in my constituency which are made viable only by the regional employment premium. Their balance sheets show that if the regional employment premium were to disappear tomorrow they would be in the red before the end of the year. Before finally deciding to phase it out, I hope that the Government will listen to what the CBI and the TUC have to say.
Thirdly, I wish to refer to Palmers Shipyard which was the first victim of a Government's "no help for the lame duck" policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) said that the Government had to change their policy. Swan Hunter now intends to make Palmers former shipyard one of the most up-to-date yards in the country, but to do that it will need Government help. I hope that Government help will be as forthcoming to Swan Hunter and on no less generous a scale than the help made available to the Upper Clyde, Harland & Wolff and others. The Government should take into account that Palmers was closed by National Shipbuilding Security Limited under a conversant that ships would never again be built in that yard. I know that Swan Hunter has been discussing this matter, but if there are any hon. Members who believe that the decision of dead men should stand in the way of men earning their living, I hope they will get up and speak now. No convenant should be allowed to stand in the way of Swan Hunter being able to provide at Palmers the work which Hebburn and Jarrow badly need.
Fourthly, Reyrolles four or five years ago employed 10,000 in Hebburn. I have discussed the matter with the Minister for Industry and have taken to see him a deputation of management and men. I wish he were here this evening. Today, Reyrolles employs 6,000 and at present there is a complete shutdown of the works because of a strike. I will not go into the merits or demerits of the strike, but undoubtedly the uncertainty that has overhung this great complex for the past year or so has something to do with the men's attitude. If men are not certain that their


jobs will be there three, six, nine or twelve months hence, they will not be as responsible as people would like them to be. I have discussed the problem with the Minister and I should like him to give me some information tonight on what help he can give to Reyrolles in reply to the representations we have made to him.
Fifthly, I wish to refer to coal. What is happening now in the world is the best possible pointer for the Government to accept the proposals of the NUM and the TUC for an energy policy. If the Government do not accept those proposals they will be acting very stupidly, in view of the world energy crisis, and a future generation will condemn them. There should be no further contraction of the coal industry. If necessary there should be a substantial expansion. Coal is the one indigenous fuel which we can provide for ourselves without the necessity of being so dependent for our energy supplies upon foreign sources.
Sixthly, are the Government able to help Sterling Foundry? Sterling Foundry has just secured a contract with Russia for £1 million. If that contract is successfully fulfilled, further contracts are likely to follow. The foundry needs steel, but the British Steel Corporation is overwhelmed with orders. If Sterling Foundry gets the steel supplies it needs, additional employment will be provided in Jarrow for between 100 and 200 people and, in addition, the Government's export drive will be helped. I hope that the Minister will do what the Labour Government of 1945–51 did and see to it that when there is a shortage of raw materials the needs of those in the development areas are met first.
Seventhly, the Government have announced public expenditure cuts. They may or may not be justified, but it would be stupid if public expenditure cuts were to be made right across the board. This is an area in which the Government can act sensibly to help the regions. After all, it is not the regions of high unemployment which have caused overheating in the economy, because those regions have unused resources and still need additional employment. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will exempt the development areas from public expenditure cuts.
We must always remember that the Government are the largest single cus-

tomer of British industry. There is not a thing that is manufactured—from nappies and pins, from tanks to bombs, from motor cars to beds, from bed linen to shoes—which the British Government in one form or another, through the nationalised industries, the hospital service or the Armed Forces, do not buy. Every large customer of which I have had experience uses its economic bargaining power to further its own ends. Therefore, the Government should use their great economic power as the biggest purchaser of what the nation produces to see that those goods are produced where they can best suit the Government policy and serve the greatest social need. This is something which the Government could do if they so determined, and this is one instrument which they have at their command and it is almost all-powerful.
I have been in this House a long time and I have taken part in many debates of this nature. Unfortunately, I now discern a cynicism which is spreading and which is dangerous for democracy. The unemployed have a right to be cynical if we do not give them the opportunity to take their place as dignified citizens following employment in the proper way. If employment is not available to them, they may well listen to those voices which are the enemies of democracy, and those antidemocratic forces may grow.
For that reason, if for no other reason, I hope that the Government will renew their efforts to improve the situation in the development areas. Since the Government forced the unemployment figure up to 1 million and then brought it down again, they cannot even now take any comfort from the situation because in my constituency at present the figure of unemployment is still 25 per cent. higher than it was in 1970, despite the fact that we are now, in the words of the Government, enjoying the fruits of a booming Britain.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: I am glad to be called following the speeches of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof), who for as long as I have been in this House have both talked a great deal of sense on behalf of County Durham—long before it began to be called the Northern Region.
I hope that Labour Members who sit for seats in the Northern Region will forgive me, as a mid-Yorkshire man, for intervening briefly in this debate. I lived for a slice of my life in County Durham, almost within sight of Fishburn pit which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed). Mr. Harold Macmillan once said that the further north you go the nicer people get, and that touches a chord in my heart.
In a debate such as this, in what amounts to a censure motion, we tend to overestimate the recent character of the kind of problems we have been discussing and underestimate the extent of the efforts which have been made in past years to get to grips with them. This does not need saying to those hon. Members who are now present in the House, but I still believe that it is worth emphasising.
As far back as the 1930s, when I first remember County Durham, problems of a similar character were being experienced because of the cyclical nature of the coal trade and heavy industry. Equally, even then quite a lot was beginning to be done in recognising the problems and in helping to cope with them. Unless my memory is at fault, the trading estate at West Auckland dates back to before the war and it marked a first step towards an attempted diversification of the industry there.
A good deal was done to improve the roads, and indeed the roads in County Durham before the war were probably the best in any county in the country. Then the war came along and naturally investment slowed up. After the war we saw the beginning of a rundown in the coal industry which intensified the problem. Steps were then taken to cope with the situation, beginning with the establishment of the Aycliffe New Town.
I also remember, since I was working in Halifax at the time, what was then regarded as a somewhat novel and unprecedented move by Paton and Baldwins knitting yarns from the West Riding to Haughton-le-Skerne, near Darlington. People at the time said that it would not work because one could not get women in the North-East to go out to work and they said there would be difficulty in obtaining the labour. But that forecast proved to be nonsense. Indeed, I was surprised that more has not been said

today about increasing opportunities for women to find jobs in the various plans which have been discussed. The motion talks about "low household incomes", and today it is true that there is a high household income by modern standards only where both the man and wife are at work or where a daughter or son of the family has the opportunity to find work and to bring money into the family.
A good deal has been said about the possibilities of employment inherent in the Government policy of dispersing the Civil Service. I am all for this suggestion and believe that they should get on with the job faster than has happened up to the present. I must be a little careful in what I say because my own constituency is a strong contender in providing this sort of employment and is anxious to obtain its share of any dispersal that is to take place. I am certain that hon. Members who press for more administrative jobs in the regions are on the right lines.
Reference has been made to the initiative of my noble and learned Friend Lord Hailsham in the early part of the 1960s. Not enough credit has been given to him for the very positive results which flowed from that. I remember it well because I was a member of the Government at the time. My noble and learned Friend did a good job in the North-East, cap on his head, boots on his feet and all. I will not weary the House with them, but I have in my possession some figures which measure the positive results which flowed from his initiative. Over the eight years or so since then, they amount to an impressive total. Great credit is due to the Government of the time.
Today the Opposition have moved a motion which on the arguments which they have put forward so far does not warrant what amounts to a vote of censure and a three-line Whip tonight. Perhaps briefly I may say why.
First, I think that there are in the North-East genuine signs of confidence returning to the heavy industrial sector and confidence that the present boom is a reality and that there is a good prospect of its continuing. Whatever one says about the relative performances of the Labour Government and the present administration, it must be true that


measures taken for the relief of a region and designed to promote economic growth have much more hope of success against the background of a 5 per cent. growth rate than they do or did against the background of fairly consistent stagnation or at any rate growth at a very much slower rate.
Secondly, the Opposition's arguments very much underrate the effects of the Industry Act. The present grants and assistance available are not only more in total than they were under the Labour Government but are better conceived and directed. They are better grants in themselves in that they are so devised as to benefit the more potentially profitable industries and, instead of being indiscriminate in their effects, to be of direct and specific help to regions such as the Northern Region where they are needed.
Reference has been made to the future of the regional employment premium. For what it is worth, I should prefer to see the money spent in other ways. It could be used more usefully in improving and extending training facilities and even in encouraging people to move to where jobs are more readily available. I am aware that others of my hon. Friends take a different view. Mine is only a personal view.
Thirdly, the Opposition motion does not recognise sufficiently how long it takes for a boom like the present one in the heavy industries to get going and how long, inevitably, it takes for Government assistance to the regions to work itself through and to be evidenced in what is actually happening in industry. Grants are made available, but they have to be processed. They have to go through the bureaucratic machine. The industries themselves have to decide whether to take advantage of them.
It is comparatively easy to stimulate a consumer boom. It is much more difficult, and requires the instillation of a great deal more confidence, for that to spread through and have its effect upon the basic industries producing capital goods. I believe that that is now happening. The Opposition have given insufficient credit to the Government for the fact that it is happening, and I believe that the North-East can look forward with every confidence to its continuance.
I come now to the subject of amenity. Several hon. Members have mentioned Operation Eyesore. I am not certain about the present position on this. But I am certain that every penny spent in the context of Operation Eyesore has been very well worth while. A great deal of work has been done on clearing slag-heaps and on urban renewal both in County Durham and to the north of Newcastle. It is extremely important, if what might be termed middle-management is to be attracted to an area and if wives and families are to be happy there when they are used to the South. The North-East has unrivalled opportunities for outdoor recreation. It is a wonderful part of the world. Anyone should be glad to go there. But over the course of years it has collected a bad image. This can be corrected and to a very large extent it has been corrected. But it costs money to do it, and any more money by way of grant aid advanced to county councils by my right hon. Friends will have my support. It will pay dividends in the beneficial effect that it will have in the North-East.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development spoke about roads and referred specifically to the road from Leeds which is to finish up in the North-East. In the context of this debate, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend was thinking of the northern end of the road. As a Yorkshire Member, I am bound to think of the southern end. Before the final route for this road is determined, I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that there is the fullest consultation with local people who will be affected and the fullest inquiry, even extending to whether a road in that direction is required at all or whether an improvement to the existing A1, which will have to happen anyway, will not be sufficient. Like my right hon. Friend, I am inclined to feel that there will be a need for such a road as a link between Leeds and the North-East. But it is very important that the route should be right and that it should do the least damage to a stretch of very beautiful and valuable Yorkshire countryside.
I leave the matter there, having much enjoyed the debate and having come thus far with the conviction that the House would be right to reject the Opposition's


motion, since I do not think that a case has been properly made for it.

8.10 p.m.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: There are two points about regional policy that matter more than anything else. The first is the Government's commitment to the policy and the second the confidence of people in industry in the Government's commitment to that policy.
I think that the Opposition could be forgiven for believing that converts are people who most strongly defend the faith. Throughout the debate we have heard many Government supporters defending the faith of regional policy. Yet one does not need too long a memory to think back to the autumn of 1970 when that same policy was being crucified by the same right hon. and lion. Gentlemen.
Some of the general points that have been made about the efficacy of regional policy are very interesting. The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) talked about better grants. We can remember when grants were abolished altogether by the present administration. The story then was that grants were too costly and that too much money was being spent on creating jobs in the regions. We are now told that more money is being spent on better grants under the Industry Act. That is an interesting about-turn by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side. By and large, we welcome this conversion not only of back-bench Members, but of Ministers. However, we are a little suspicious of the Government's commitment to regional development policies, particularly in the Northern Region.
We also remember the incoming Conservative administration cutting back on the advance factory programme. In no way was this more damaging than in the town of Millom, in South-West Cumberland, where the commitment to build a second advance factory was delayed to such effect that that building is still not available to a new industry, even if one were found, coming into the town.
One matter that concerns us about the Government's lack of commitment is their seeming inability to obtain any firm decision from the European Economic Com-

munity on the direction that its regional policies will take. It seems that most of the questioning and probing about the Commission's intentions in the regional development sphere is coming from the Opposition.
It is interesting to recall that we have, so we understand, a Cabinet Minister who speaks for the Northern Region. We are not quite sure who he is. Perhaps if he is here he will stand up and let us know. So far as we remember, it used to be the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). He is patently not here. Whether this responsibility has been transferred with the exchange of jobs to the right hon. Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) is not clear. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have this commitment to the Northern Region and which of these two worthies, or which other Minister, now assumes this mantle of responsibility. It would also be interesting to know when any one of them last made a speech about what is happening in the Northern Region.

Mr. Graham Page: Last Monday

Dr. Cunningham: By whom? Several Ministers made speeches. The right hon. Gentleman is not really answering the question.
One matter which seems not to have been discussed today is the effect of the Government's policies in other regions. It is astonishing that the Government should think that they can mount realistic regional development policies to attract industry to the Northern Region and at the same time pursue the Maplin development, involving the investment of thousands of millions of pounds in an international airport, a deep water terminal and industrial building land, without realising that this will pre-empt a huge percentage of industrial development finances in the next decade. It is staggering that that point does not seem to have dawned on Ministers.
If we add to that the bone-headed idea of pursuing the Channel Tunnel project—again in the South-East—we see that, despite whatever well-intentioned Ministers might say and do about providing regional incentives, the South-East will develop at a far greater rate with this kind of investment. So, however hard


Ministers may run to provide growth in the Northern Region, the differences will grow wider, not narrower.
This seems to be quite straightforwardly what right lion. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have always argued—namely, the effect of market forces on the development of the British economy. Indeed, on the one hand they are telling us that they have this great commitment to regional development, to the creation of one nation, to a more even balance of growth in Britain, whereas, on the other, they are pursuing these policies in the South-East.
It is interesting to learn that by the mid-1980s some 400 multi-national companies will control about 75 per cent. of assets in the western world. Can we believe that, without some kind of serious Government intervention, industrial development in Britain, or within the EEC for that matter, will not be continually distorted in the next decade by this tremendous concentration of assets in such a small number of industrialists' hands? This will be one of the biggest single challengers not only to this Government but to the European Economic Community.
It is astonishing that the Government should deride what I accept may have been some stumbling attempts by members of the Labour Party to devolve a policy on this issue, but it is reprehensible that they have not recognised the need for a policy in this sphere.
I turn now to the situation in my constituency. The Minister opening the debate for the Government mentioned the situation in West Cumberland and the creation of a task force. -He said that this was something new. As I understand it, the task force is a collection of civil servants who report privately to the Department. I have called for publication of not only the report but its main recommendations. I am told that it is not available. What is new about civil servants reporting on possible courses of action to Ministers? It is a public relations exercise, unless the Government publish the task force's report so that the proposals and ideas in it can be publicly debated. That would be new, but that is not the Government's intention.
The bare facts are that in the next few months, already begun with the closure of Solway Colliery, we shall lose 1,000 male jobs in West Cumberland. That is 3 per cent. of all men presently employed in that area. Male unemployment will inevitably edge up towards 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. At the time that I met the task force, there were fewer than 100 new jobs in the pipeline. No announcement since has made any significant difference to that total.
I understand that people in the Department believe that the main hope is to bring forward firms' expansion programmes to try to close the gap. That is fine, and understandably the quickest way to make some improvement. The only trouble is that it is a once-for-all policy because, in terms of local firms, next year's seed corn and the seed corn of the year after has been used up. This is no substitute for the location of new industry in the region. This will be the crucial test of the Government's commitment; not that a boom produces an expansion but that new jobs should be located in the special development areas. I hope that as a result of the Hardman Report a Government establishment will be located in West Cumberland. The most crucial shortage of all is in administrative technical jobs for young people.
I welcome the Government's apparent commitment to regional development policies, but the Government have commitments to certain firms in my constituency at the present time. The Minister for Industrial Development knows all about the Sealand hovercraft situation. That company is still in Millom, and still trading, and the project is worth saving. I do not intend to castigate the Minister about his previous behaviour or his apparent penchant for losing his temper on television—that is a matter for himself—but there are two other firms in the area which have had outstanding claims for investment grant since before October 1970—almost three years.
The firms are Millson Engineering of Whitehaven and Slacks of Millom. I invite the Minister to look at those two companies' applications. Let us have a decision here and now. It is inexcusable that small businessmen setting up in a special development area should have to


wait three years for a Government decision on what, in terms of Government expenditure, are matters of small finance. Let us have no more apologies but more muscle in the Government's approach to regional development, and let us see some location of new industry in the special development areas.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins: In the interests of brevity I propose to restrict my remarks to problems in my constituency, and to concentrate particularly on the lack of job opportunities which exists to a very serious extent in the Consett and Stanley areas of County Durham.
This is an area the entire future of which is threatened by the closure or projected closure late in this decade of the British Steel Corporation's works at Consett—one of the remaining sources of large-scale employment in the area. It employs between 6,000 and 6,500 people and injects certainly not less than £30 million a year of spending power into the economy of a very large area—not only the area of Consett and Stanley but that of west and north-west County Durham. There is no other comparable industry in the whole area in terms of the numbers employed or the amount of earning power provided. Yet within the terms of the Government's White Paper it is proposed that that place should be closed down late in this decade.
I was told by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—who has not attended the debate—when he made his long-delayed statement on 21st December last on the future of the steel industry that there was a possibility of some manufacture continuing at Consett as a supplementary source of steel billet making. The White Paper, published after that statement, indicates that there is only one chance in four of that happening because Consett has to be considered with three other places as a possible supplementary source of billet manufacture. But even if that one chance in four is realised, it will still mean a vast reduction of jobs in the area, and repercussions affecting the living standards of every family.
When the Secretary of State made his statement he talked of the massive advantages of his proposals for the steel Indus-

try. There are no massive advantages for Consett. Furthermore, we are not talking here about closing down an old works but closing down a modern and highly efficient plant in which a new 150-ton basic oxygen steel vessel has been commissioned within a matter of weeks prior to this debate. We are in fact talking of the closing down or projected closing down of a works currently operating at record levels of production and efficiency. All this is projected to happen to an area which has already been hit savagely by a huge rundown in the coal mining industry, and savagely hit not only by that rundown but by a whole series of redundancies in those very industries which were supposed to have been introduced into the area to solve the problems created by the run-down of the coal mining industry.
For 15 years my constituency has lost an average of 1,000 jobs every year. Last year, in one ever-to-be-forgotten seven-week period, 1,100 redundancies were announced. Whilst Government supporters talk about the booming North-East, the situation in my constituency is that on 6th October next, one of the only two remaining collieries is to be closed down, and another 500 jobs will disappear as a result.
That is the measure of the problem not only of Consett and Stanley but of a wide area of north-west and west County Durham. When Members of the Government talk about a booming Britain, I must tell them that the only boom they have produced in my constituency is that of prices.
Because of the extent of the problems I have outlined and also because of its geography and location, this is an area which requires special status if it is to attract new industry. It used to have a special status which gave it an advantage over other parts in the Northern Region, and which it required, but the present Government wiped out that advantage. It is interesting to recall the method of that wiping out.
On Friday, 19th February 1971, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. John A. Cunningham) initiated a debate, on a Private Member's motion, on the Northern Region. The day before that debate took place the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the extension of special development area status


to Tyneside and Wearside, no doubt to try to pre-empt my hon. Friend's motion. I do not deny that there then existed and now exist serious problems on Tyneside and Wearside, but what the Government's action then did was to wipe out—at a stroke to use a famous phrase—such advantages as West and North-West County Durham possessed in seeking to come to terms with quite exceptional problems. Since that action was undertaken by the Government there has not been one major development in the area. There have certainly been minor developments—there have been advance factories—but they have done no more than scratch the surface of the problems which there exist.
If Consett and Stanley and West and North-West Durham are not to be turned into totally depressed areas, the Government will have to do far better in relation to those areas than they have done. Furthermore, they will have to jerk themselves out of the complacency which we have seen accepted so far in the debate.
I conclude with some positive suggestions as to what might be done. A number of my hon. Friends have referred to the announcement by the British Leyland Motor Corporation of its longterm investment proposals, including a proposal to build a completely new motor-car plant in an area of the country where one does not currently exist. A number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), have drawn attention to the necessity of that plant coming to the Northern Region. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) pointed out that it was necessary for that plant to come within the triangle bounded by the Tyne and the Tees, in effect, the triangle of County Durham. I support him in that. It should come to the western point of that triangle in order to nullify the catastrophic effects which will take place from the run-down of the iron and steel industry in Consett. Something of that sort is the only hope of avoiding ghost towns and villages in a very large area.
The Minister must use his powers under Section 7 of the Industry Act. For all the talk we have heard during the debate we have had little evidence as yet of the application of those powers to West

and North-West Durham. The Minister must use those powers to restore to that area the advantage which it needs in order to overcome its particular problems and which was wiped out by the present Government primarily to secure debating points in the House in an earlier debate rather than to look after the interests and livelihoods of people in the Northern Region.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: Before coming to the main body of my speech I should like to refer to the unemployment figures nationally. One or two hon. Members of the Opposition have done exactly that. Over the last two years I have not found any individual in business outside the House who believes the unemployment statistics. Many hon. Members of the Opposition and certainly many of my hon. Friends do not believe the statistics about unemployment. In the last 12 months we have had a departmental look at these figures, undertaken by the Department of Employment. I am not satisfied with the figures. One finds in business and industry the idea that no one can trust these figures. They are high, but they involve many people who will never work again. Today, with better benefits, people between jobs take longer to choose their next job than they ever did previously.
That does not mean that there is nothing to talk about within the regions. There is. But the trouble with these regional debates is that they are all incestuous. As I look around the Chamber I see nothing but hon. Members representing North-Eastern constituencies and the Northern Region. As Members of this House, it is our duty to go out and drag in some of the Members from the South-East. The problems of the regions are every bit as much theirs as ours. The best thing that has happened in the last two months—perhaps it is not the best thing—is that the control of the Greater London Council has changed hands. The GLC colleagues of hon. Members of the Opposition have given a great fillip to the regions. They have stopped the ring motorway around London. I should have thought that that was great news for the regions. The congestion is to continue in the miserable South-East, for years longer, because they


have not started on a peripheral road around London.
That is good news for the regions. It is simple logic. We should bring in the South-Easterners and tell them what we think of the miserable living conditions and the congestion in the South-East. This is the distressed area environmentally. We read newspapers and watch television programmes produced by South-Easterners who are all involved in this terrible congestion. Some journalists were saying a few months ago that we should not go for economic growth because it ruins the environment. Let me tell those journalists and hon. Members from the South-East that we in the North can do with lots of economic growth. It will not harm our environment. It will be good, and there is plenty of room for this kind of expansion. This is what regional policy should be about. It is not turning it on its head but looking at it through correct and logical eyes.
One or two hon. Members have poured scorn on this boom. I am glad to say that only one or two have done so, because others have said that when the boom is on, the regions benefit. That is the time when unemployment drops. All hon. Members should ask the Government to continue to go for growth, for a continued policy of growth and not stop-start.
I know that the bottlenecks will start. Hon. Members opposite have talked about overheating. There is overheating in the South-East. I should prefer to see the Government and businessmen, who are more important, anyway, tackling the problems of bottlenecks rather than worrying about the problems of no growth and no sales. We want to keep on with continued growth. Let us tackle the bottlenecks. Let us have growth as a habit. If boom goes on and on, this will be the best help that the regions can get.
I am reminded of President John Kennedy's famous precept that the time to mend the roof is when the sun is shining. The sun is shining economically in Britain right now. The time to mend the roofs in the regions is right now. This is what the debate has been about in its multiplicity of ways.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) is not here. He is a very sincere Member from the North-East to whom I enjoy listening. His sincerity shines in the Chamber. I should have liked to ask the hon. Member whether he believes that the document which his party produced last week, which I presume he will support, and which calls for the nationalisation of more and more companies, will bring any more jobs to Blaydon. If he does believe that, he is sincere, but he is mistaken.
The Northern Region has more than its fair share of nationalisation. The steel industry, the electricity industry and the railways are overmanned. The Northern Region produces a high proportion of electricity. Out-of-date industries must be run down. The people in the regions will not be helped by our pretending that we cannot allow out-of-date industries to be run down. If those industries are not run down we hurt our competitive position in the world. That would be the worst thing we could do for the people in the regions.
In this debate my mind goes automatically to the question of regional policy in Europe. I have looked with almost a shock at the map of Europe which was produced by the Financial Times. A few moments ago the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Regional Development in Europe came in and talked to another Member of the House. It is good to know that Members of the House are in Europe working for regional policy.
I plead with hon. Members opposite to urge their party leaders to send some of their own Members to Strasbourg to work for the regional policy which is being developed there by an ex-member of the Labour Party who is now a European Commissioner. I will not describe Mr. Thomson as our member there. He is a member for the whole Community. There is a great job of work to be done in Europe, and the North-East, with its proximity to Europe, is very concerned in this aspect of regional development—[Interruption.]—when I was the hon. Member for Cleveland I believed in our entry into Europe and I still believe in it. I still believe that it is correct for the North and the North-East.
It has always been said that there are not enough skilled men in the regions. The Government have introduced additional training schemes, but there is resistance to the schemes—legitimately and probably rightly from the point of view of the unions. It is now said that the attitude of the unions is more liberal than ever before. I believe that this is so and that self-help can take place within the regions.
Hon. Members should ask the trade unions in the development and intermediate areas to reduce the term of apprenticeships. Nowadays an apprenticeship of four years is not necessary. Last week a boy to whom I gave a lift told me that he was on a four-year apprenticeship. He was going to training school every day, travelling 90 miles, and he was bored stiff. The pace of his training was too slow. I was once a technical training instructor and I know that people can absorb skills and information much more rapidly than they have to. I hope that in these areas the trade unions will make their rules more liberal and will reduce apprenticeship periods to two years.
This approach is absolutely in line with today's world. As a result of training board levies, employers will send people for short courses of a week or a fortnight, and the employees will be able to adapt their skills to the changes in industry. The trade unions within the Northern Region should reduce the period for training apprentices.
The Humber and Yorkshire Economic Planning Council has made a suggestion which is worthy of consideration. I do not know whether the planning council has made this suggestion publicly, but I have certainly heard it discussed. The M62 motorway opens on 5th July, at long last. It runs from Liverpool to Hull. The suggestion is that it should be called the central British motorway. For years we have nagged about being too far north. "The Midlands" means only the middle of England. That band across the country is the centre of Britain. For a European looking at Britain, this suggestion makes good sense. Also it brings the Northern Region psychologically much nearer to this complex where many of the firms are, in London. I think this is a sensible suggestion and I hope that the

Minister of Transport will bear it in mind when he opens the motorway, and will call it by that name.
My last point is one which I am surprised has not already been made. I listened to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) who reminded the House that the Northern Region extended across the country and included Westmorland and Cumberland. I listened to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. John A. Cunningham), and I was amazed that he did not make this point. We have had the Water Resources Bill before the House. There have been at least three schemes for putting a barrage and motorway across Morecambe Bay. This is a scheme which surely hon. Members representing this region ought to urge upon the Government. An industrial boom needs more and more water. There has been a scheme for Solway Firth, but I believe that the Morecambe scheme is much more attractive because it opens up Barrow-in-Furness which is difficult to get to.
I make one last plea, namely that we should not knock the boom. It is a time when unemployment drops in the regions. We must make progress while the boom lasts so that we can obtain lasting benefit in the regions.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: The motion refers to a number of extremely important matters, such as social inequality, the social services, and so on. I feel that one may be forgiven for concentrating on the question of unemployment because this problem has been with the region for a long time. Successive Governments have made various attempts to solve this problem. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, they have used the carrot and the stick. The carrot has taken the form of extremely generous incentives and investment grants but, in spite of these generous provisions, the problem of unemployment remains with us.
One of the most tragic and distressing features of unemployment is the way in which it affects young people. It is distressing that youngsters, having completed their schooling, are unable to find suitable employment to accord with their educational background. As a result, school-leavers are taking on menial jobs


for which their educational attainments make them unsuited. That is a waste of talent for the region and the country. Since 1969 the problem of youth unemployment in Gateshead has been progressively worsening, until now the figure is double what it was in that year. The Government claim—and I accept the point—that the problems of youth unemployment will not be resolved in isolation. Clearly, the issue is also wrapped up with the total unemployment figures. Therefore, we should devise policies which attempt to ensure that greater inroads are made into the total unemployment figure.
There has been an improvement recently, but any such improvement on the vast increase of unemployment in the last two years is an improvement that makes little progress. Therefore, the policies that have been tried before and have failed have to be replaced. I take the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot). There must be greater governmental intervention in the regions, and if that means public ownership, so be it. We do not advocate public ownership merely for ideological or doctrinaire reasons. We advocate it for good, sound, solid social reasons. Obviously, the Government are failing to intervene sufficiently in industry, and they are failing to obtain greater investment and create more jobs.
I want to give one example of what I mean. The Government are probably the largest customer of equipment and services. Therefore, they should take powers directly to intervene in the companies providing equipment and services, to ensure that those companies do their work in regions with the greatest unemployment problem. Unfortunately, the Government are not using the powers they possess. I cite the case of Marconi Radar Systems. Much defence expenditure is being wasted because of purchases that are being made abroad for the Services—purchases that could have been made here, in the regions and in my constituency. Marconi Radar Systems is a good example. The company manufactures high quality radar, and in the domestic market it provides equipment to the three Services and to the Civil Aviation Authority. The Government

have said that they cannot intervene in the affairs of the company and that it must be left to the company to use its commercial discretion in deciding where it will do its work.
There is no problem here, because the company has undertaken to me that if the Government are prepared to put work into the company it will be done at Gateshead. But in spite of many representations by me—I have written to the Minister for Industrial Development several times, asking him to use his good offices to put work into this company, which is threatened with closure and whose work force has been reduced by 50 per cent. in two years—there has been no satisfactory response. I wrote to the Minister asking him to do what he could. Nice polite letters were received, full of sympathy. I have also been in correspondence with the Minister for Defence Procurement, as he was, asking him to examine the programmes of the three Services in order to provide essential work for this factory. Again, I received lots of sympathy and nice polite replies. We do not want nice polite replies and we do not want lots of sympathy. We want work and jobs.
It may be of interest if I also explain that when I wrote to the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway)—who, I understand, will wind up this debate—in his capacity as Minister for Industrial Development, his interest was such that I did not even get a reply. Tonight he will proclaim his great interest in the regions and in providing jobs, but he did not even reply to the letter that I sent him on 14th October 1972.

Mr. Chataway: I am, of course, extremely distressed to hear that the hon. Member did not have a reply, but I cannot believe that he was so uninterested in the subject about which he was writing to me that he did not write another letter to ask whether the first arrived.

Mr. Conlan: It was perfectly clear that the Minister was uninterested in the situation, and I had to leave Government responsibility to his two hon. Friends.
I want now to turn to the problem of the Civil Aviation Authority. It was asked to bring forward programmes. "We are very sorry," was the reply,


"but we cannot do this. We cannot give any assistance." At the same time, during the period of the problems of this company in my constituency, where three sets of redundancies have been declared, the CAA, presumably with Government approval, was able to enter into contract arrangements for five sets of radar equipment with the German firm Standard Elektrik Lorenz. If the Government were determined and keen on providing jobs in the regions they could have used their veto on this contract to ensure that it was given to the region.
Industry in the North-East is doing a fine job, in providing excellent products at the right price and the right time. Unfortunately, there is not enough industry to provide more jobs. What is required is greater investment and diversification. The Opposition's determination is to reduce the threat of insecurity and to remove for all time the scourge of large-scale, long-term unemployment.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. George Grant: I, too, welcome this opportunity to debate the problems of the Northern Region. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghtonle-Spring (Mr. Urwin) started by outlining the regional aspects of the problem. I will seek to relate these problems to my constituency. Many other hon. Members have sought to relate the problems to their constituencies.
Male unemployment in the Northern Region is 6·4 per cent. This is 10 per cent. of national unemployment. My own constituency, Morpeth, which is in the mid-Northumberland exchange area, has a male unemployment figure of 6 per cent. I am very pleased that there has been an improvement in the unemployment situation, but I do not accept that this "boom" is totally responsible for the reduction in the figures. I feel confident that in my constituency civil servants have reduced the number to some extent by changing men from the unemployment list to the social security list, men who because of the pit closure programme and reorganisation in the pits, have no jobs to do, men who were incapacitated but fit to do some types of jobs—but the jobs which they were capable of doing were just not there.
Apart from what it has done in the mining industry, mechanisation has taken many jobs on the farms away. Most road building work is now done on the drawing board, and the manual labour required is much less. Work is done in the main by machines. Even road sweeping is mechanised.
In the Northern Region the figure for male unemployment is 54,000, of whom it is reckoned that 32,000 are classified as general labourers. It is imperative that a new approach be made to training. I am the first to agree that many men in the dole queues are not material for training, but there are many men in jobs which they could do and who have potential to be trained for other work. Men will not volunteer for training if they are in jobs. In the national interest and the interests of our long-term investment, the Government should pay to attract men to take up training. New skills are required in the region.
In the building industry in the region there are 323 vacancies for bricklayers and 526 vacancies for carpenters. In my constituency a fine scheme has been introduced by the Home Office in which prisoners are trained in building skills. If it is possible for prisoners to be trained in that way, a much more realistic approach should be made in the region to fill vacancies and widen the scope of training. What is wrong in the Government's paying men to be trained on a building site so as to fill vacancies? What is wrong with colliery surface plant being used for training?
Men who are in jobs will not put forward their names for training. If they were paid to undergo training, men with potential, who might be in dead-end jobs, would leave the way clear for those men who have not got the skills and unfortunately cannot be trained.
Professor Dennison of Newcastle University, backed by Northumberland County Council, recently made a survey of the Ashington area. The survey highlights the problems in my constituency. In 1958 there were 58 pits in Northumberland. Today there are only 12. In the Ashington area in 1961, when Ashington was probably the biggest colliery village in the world, 69 per cent. of the male population was employed in mining. Today the figure is 48 per cent. The


present unemployment figures for the area show that 64 per cent. of the unemployed men are over the age of 55. That is a real problem.
In his report, Professor Dennison makes a serious prediction. He says:
In 1960 there were 17 working pits in the Household Survey Area. By the beginning of 1971 only 6 remained open. We have assumed that a further 4 pits will close by the end of 1975. On the basis of a number of assumptions not all of which are likely to be fulfilled, we estimate that male registered unemployment will rise beyond 15 per cent. by 1975.
Already one pit has closed. That is the Bedlington pit which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne). Recently the National Coal Board proposed the closure of Netherton colliery. The only two pits that could be classified as long-life pits are Ellington and Lynemouth collieries. I do not accept the prediction which has been put forward that the other two pits will close by 1975. I have discussed this matter with the National Coal Board.
The fact is that they are not long-life pits. The survey talks about unemployment amounting to 15 per cent. It is time that the Government did something about the matter.
Earlier this year the Government announced 17 advance factories. There was not one such factory in the Morpeth constituency. This weekend the Secretary of State, when he was in Ashington, made an announcement that there was to be such a factory. Of the 17 factories that were announced, not one brick has yet been laid.
A serious statement was made by John Hobbs, the chairman of the North-East Development Council. The Evening Chronicle of 29th May says:
The shortage of advance factories is seriously hampering efforts to attract new jobs in the region. Mr. John Hobbs, director of the North of England Development Council, said today. Because of the extreme shortage many industrialists who want a factory in the North-East for immediate use just can't have one, he said. Only last week a German firm came to us wanting a factory which would have provided 100 jobs but there was not one available.
In my constituency there are 108 males who are registered for sheltered work. There is a Remploy factory in the area. However, when the position is reached

when there are 108 men registered for sheltered work it is time that the Government were looking for an expansion of Remploy in the district.
It might be argued that Remploy is not a paying proposition. It must be considered that these men will not claim social security. They pay their stamp. They pay income tax and, most important of all, such employment gives these men an interest in living and restores their pride.
I shall stress briefly the serious water situation in the Northern Region. The way the Government have dithered and been indecisive about the water supply must represent one of their biggest failures. The Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company and the Tynemouth Water Board both expect to reach the limit of available resources in 1974. The Teesside Water Company expects to be fully committed by 1976. The Northumbria River Authority brought forward the imaginative scheme of Kielder. If that had been started this year it would have provided, by 1976, 15 million gallons of water a day. It would have been completed in 1978. By that stage it would have been bringing 200 million gallons a day to the area.
The county council, the North-East Development Council, the local authorities and the majority of hon. Members were in full support of the Kielder scheme. It is unfortunate that the present Secretary of State for the Environment had to deal with the problem. He looked at the objectives from within his own constituency. The Government inspector who dealt with the inquiry also came out with his support for Kielder. I realise that the inquiry will be reopened on 19th June. I hope that the Government realise the importance of the scheme to the whole of the Northern Region and that they will give the matter the urgency which it demands.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: As only half my constituency qualifies for the regional incentives of the Northern Region I shall endeavour to make my speech take only half as long as usual, in the hope that another hon. Member may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before the close of the debate.
The part of the area that comes within the scope of Northern Region industrial incentives is Furness and North Lonsdale, and in that area are two main sources of employment—manufacturing industry and tourism. They are equally dependent on road communications. They are equally dependent on the same communication route—the A590, which can truly be described as an artery for Furness and North Lonsdale. If my right hon. Friend were to ask, "Is there one thing that I can do to ensure the economic development of the western side of the new county of Cumbria?", I would say, "Yes—press on with adequate improvements to the A590." That would be sufficient, and would be recognised as sufficient, by everybody in the area.
There has been no argument that improvements to this line of communication are urgently necessary. What has happened is that, due to a weakness in administrative procedures—or, perhaps, to what I hope will be the last time that inadequate administrative procedures were followed—there has been unnecessary delay in bringing about this improvement.
There were only two ways to improve access to the area. One was by building a new road across the head of Morecambe Bay, which came to be known on the drawing board as the link road. The other was by improving the existing A590. About six years ago, Lancashire County Council put the link road among its four principal priorities for road improvements in the county. In 1967, the Ministry of Tranport put the link road in the preparation pool. At that time it was generally assumed that the question was only when it would be built and not whether it would be built.
Due to increasing concern about environmental matters, there were objections to the proposal and in 1970 a public inquiry was held. That, I think, is where the administrative weakness showed itself. Unlike the case with the A66 in Cumberland, as I understand it, the two alternative routes were not evaluated together. Nor, as far as I can see, was any serious contingency planning done for work to commence as quickly as possible on the alternative—the only alternative route—if the link road proposal were rejected as a result of the inquiry.
It was rejected after a wait of practically two and a half years. We have had experience of delays in getting results from public inquiries, but hon. Members can appreciate the feelings of my constituents who had to wait two and a half years for a verdict and then found that it was against their project, for which they had been waiting eagerly for many years.
What I am asking is that, so far as can be done within the limits of the administrative resources available, the area should not be penalised by unnecessary delay or by an inadequate alternative route because the proposal which it wished to see adopted was rejected on environmental grounds. If one is to make an environmental decision for the benefit of the community as a whole, then the community as a whole should meet the cost and not those locally who have been affected by the decision.
That there was not contingency planning is clear from the fact that the comparatively minor design modifications to the Lindale Bypass—itself a major improvement but requiring these small modifications as a result of the decision—will not be completed to allow the statutory notices to be published much before the end of the year. There are several projected improvements on which planning work has already been done. There is the Greenodd Bypass diversion on the A590, which I understand is now awaiting a report from the Lancashire County Council—what, I believe, is known as a firm programme report. The same applies to stage III of the Ulverston improvement.
There are improvements envisaged to what is known as the Haverthwaite cross roads. It is accepted by the Department of the Environment that there must be substantial improvements to the A590 between Levens Bridge and Lindale. Local bodies, industrialists and citizens who use the road frequently, of whom I am one, are pressing that as much of that length as possible should be dual carriageway. What I am pressing for is the recognition of the fact that because we now appreciate, where there are alternatives, that it would be more sensible to consider them together, because this is perhaps the last major road improvement where such a process was not gone


through, and because the new improvements will not show the same return on capital as those which were rejected on environmental grounds, the Government should not expect Cumbria to pay the price for an environmental decision taken on much broader grounds.
I hope that the Government will press on with these improvements with all rapidity, will make them effective and so help industry in the area and help the Lake District environmentally. At present small geographical areas are being choked with tourists while there are other large areas which could accommodate more visitors if only the road access was much better. We are delighted to see visitors. We can accommodate them. They go away and leave the Lake District much as it was. At the moment there is a grave imbalance between the way they choke certain parts of the Lake District and do not reach other parts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Mr. Bagier.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: rose——

Mr. Ted Fletcher: This has been a wide-ranging debate——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry. I called Mr. Bagier. I am sorry I cannot call the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher).

Mr. Bagier: rose——

Mr. Fletcher: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member whom I have called—I thought I pronounced his name correctly—is the hon. Member on my extreme left.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Bagier: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the record, my name is Bagier. Sometimes it is pronounced "Badger"—sometimes it is a lot worse. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part briefly in this debate. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) has been pipped by me.
One of the most difficult jobs at this late stage is to condense into a few

minutes a speech which has taken a week to prepare. I hope the House will bear with me if I hurry along and put my remarks into a few short sentences. I represent a part of Sunderland and it was remarkable to read in this morning's paper the suggestion that because Sunderland has won the FA Cup that has done great things for its industry. It is said that everyone is working happily, that industrial relations are much better and so on. I am afraid that this is so much newspaper talk. Pleased as I am about the Cup, I am afraid it is a rather secondary matter.
We are still left with a town that is far from happy, with about 7,500 unemployed and a male unemployment figure of 8·9 per cent. It is against that background that we approach this debate in serious tone.
I wish to underline one or two remarks about shipbuilding made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The Minister has been quite forthcoming in holding meetings, but I ask him to have a quick look at what can be done for Doxford and the Sunderland shipbuilders. The Minister for Local Government and Development said that the Booz-Allen Report would need to be studied. Surely the success story of the Wear shipbuilders does not take much studying. According to the Booz-Allen Report, out of about £160 million poured into shipbuilding, the Sunderland area as a whole has had about £13,000 in Government grants. We are not asking for a great deal. We mention the success story and suggest that it might be prudent for the Government to invest in a success story. The report says that Doxford of Sunderland is now controlled by the successful Appledore management. What more justification do the Government want for making a quick decision?
The report also says that Appledore and Austin Pickergsgill have good delivery arrangements and that the latter company has for several years been successfully taking part in the SD 14 scheme. According to information available to us, when it can get the go-ahead it will build the most modern indoor shipbuilding complex in Europe, and it will make a success story of it. This would help to reduce the high unemployment in Sunderland.
I ask the Minister to use his good offices to short-cut this thorough examination right across the board.
I ask him to think again and to be selective. If there are problems with Cammell Laird and with Glasgow, they should be examined in detail, but Sunderland should also be examined in detail. Investment in Sunderland would be an investment in a success story and not a bolstering up of a lame duck.
It is ludicrous that a cut of £20 million should be made in the training scheme, particularly when there are 50,000 unemployed men in the region and only 5,000 training places. The Government must again think in terms of being selective and not just do things right across the board.
The Minister may say that one difficulty is that not all the training positions are taken up, but a married man with two children often cannot afford to take up training particularly if he does not know for what he is being trained. Industry is not in a position to say to a man that in six or 12 months' time he will start at a certain place. He has to explain to his wife why she must accept a reduction in income while he does his training. Perhaps some of that £20 million might go to genuine hardship cases where a man wants to better himself but cannot afford to do so.
I ask the Government to consider extending Operation Eyesore. I am the first into battle in defending my region as a beautiful region, but it has suffered from the ravages of the past industrial vandalism of the rivers, the river banks and the environment. Much more money could be spent on Operation Eyesore, and I ask the Minister to extend the scheme beyond September.
I shall not mention the 17 advance factories that have not been started. The Government should bear in mind that the square footage of factory space includes factory space which is broken down, old factories and factories which are unacceptable to industries which might come into the region. Is it possible for local authorities to be given a go-ahead to examine the property to see whether it is usable? The direct works department in Sunderland might do that. I cannot miss this opportunity of deploring the fact that the Government

have seen fit to put a specific embargo on the direct works department building houses for sale.
The Government are supposed to believe in the idea that everybody should be able to own their own houses. Their reasons for so believing are remarkable. In one section of the town where they have been building houses for sale they are half way through the development. But now the Government have said that for policy reasons they are to disallow the direct labour organisation the opportunity to tender.
The wording of the letter to the Town Clerk of Sunderland is priceless. The letter says that the Department of the Environment will not allow Sunderland to go in for the completion of the second half of the 26 houses for sale. I will quote the precise wording:
I appreciate the problems experienced by your Council in trying to obtain competitive private tenders for the earlier competition but the fact that the Direct Labour Organisation is unable to compete in the next stage should go a long way to persuading private firms to submit competitive tenders for the next phase. …
No longer will the direct labour organisation be allowed to build cheaper houses, for they are to be debarred from such tenders. I hope that the Minister will have a word with his right hon. Friend about this important matter. Indeed, I hope the Government will take note of all I have said.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: We have had a wide-ranging debate, but I was interested to hear the Minister for Local Government and Development say that this was not the right time for such a debate. Since we are now apparently doing better than we were 12 months ago and are at what is described as the beginning of an economic boom, it is said that this is the wrong time to debate regional policies. I suggest that this is exactly the right time to consider this problem.
We have had a regional problem for at least half a century. I grew up in West Durham, and we know from the figures that in November 1934 although unemployment in London and the South-East of England was 4 per cent., in West Durham unemployment was running at 50·6 per cent. of the population—in other


words, in that area in November 1934 there were more men unemployed than there were men at work.
The consequences of that kind of imbalance are still with us. Despite all the regional resources which have been put into the regions, particularly the Northern Region, we still have social inequalities, lack of job opportunities and all the other items which are mentioned in the motion. There has been a constant transference of families to the more prosperous areas, and the gap between the more affluent areas and the Northern Region during the past 50 years has never been closed. It is interesting to note that even at peak times of prosperity in the last 20 years unemployment in the Northern Region has always been almost twice the national average.
To depend on the idea—and this was the theme of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in Newcastle on Friday, and indeed it was echoed by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Local Government and Development in his remarks today—that because the country is now seeing an upsurge in the national economy there is less reason to be anxious about regional policies is to deny the evidence of the past half century.
I am pleased and privileged tonight to represent the folk in the Northern Region. I wish to tell the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) that I do not come armed with a begging bowl. There is no question of my proffering a begging bowl for people in the North. No region has contributed more to the well being, prosperity and wealth of the nation than the Northern Region and its people. They have suffered from a rundown in jobs in the basic industries but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) said, in many of the new industries which have come to the region over the past 15 years they have experienced serious job losses in the past three years.
We in the North assert the right to work. We assert that we have also the right to a decent return for that work. We have the right to be able to provide by our own efforts the necessities for good

family life and that we should be able to do it in the place of our choice.
I was disturbed to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North pouring scorn on the desire of folk in the North to have the opportunity to work in the North. He talked about people wanting jobs on their doorsteps and so on. The truth is that during the whole of my lifetime there has been direction of labour for many people in the Northern Region. As a schoolmaster my first job in 1937 was to work at Felling. There were then 300 school teachers unemployed in Durham. I went to what was called the dole school. It was the junior instruction centre for youngsters who had left school. I seem to remember that they received two shillings a week unemployment pay. We were persuading them to come to the affluent South to work in hotel kitchens and to do all kinds of menial jobs which they came and did rather than join the dole queue.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. I do so only because, with great respect to him, he has taken my words completely out of context. My point was that we in the Northern Region should all now recognise the growth area situation and realise that jobs cannot be brought to every pit village. There must be growth areas. That is all that I was saying.

Mr. Armstrong: I am not suggesting that jobs should be brought to every pit village. However, the hon. Gentleman should make speeches like that in Consett or West Durham. Views of that kind explain why it is that no Tory ever represents that part of the country.
The availability of work is still the basic problem in the Northern Region. We all know that unemployment anywhere and at any time is a waste of human resources. But career destruction and redundancy amongst the middle-aged when there is no alternative is a human tragedy.
Let us look at the unemployment figures. In mid-May 1973 there were 50,921 men unemployed in the Northern Region. That was 2,200 more than in June 1970. We get no satisfaction therefore from speeches such as that made by the Secretary of State in Newcastle


on Friday. It was a complacent speech making it appear that we had nothing to worry about, that because unemployment had dropped drastically during the past 12 months we need not be fearful about the future.
We are today almost back to where we were in June 1970. If we look at the notified vacancies and the numbers of unemployed men available in May 1973, for every 100 notified vacancies in the South-East, there are 68 unemployed men. In the middle of what the Secretary of State declared to be an economic boom and what the Minister for Local Government and Development described today as "Boom, boom, boom," for every 100 vacancies in the North-East there are 350 unemployed men. That is a great improvement on the position two years ago. At that time the Government had destroyed their regional policy alogether. But it is still a very serious matter for those unemployed in the Northern Region who seek regular work.
In the course of his speech on Friday, the Secretary of State reviewed the prospects for the future and talked about 6,000 jobs over the next three years. A total of 6,000 jobs is a drop in the ocean compared with the real needs of the Northern Region.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. George Grant) referred to the 17 advance factories which were announced in January this year. When will the construction of the first of those factories commence? They were announced in January, but not a single start has been made during the intervening period. We know now that shortages of land and material are preventing the programme going ahead. No wonder Malcolm Crawford, the economics editor of the Sunday Times, last week headed his article,
Jobs flood in yet regions are still on the dole.
There is no room for complacency here. Of course regional policy has helped. We have succeeded in conducting a holding operation and there has been some improvement in the structure of our industries.
One of the greatest needs in the Northern Region is positive encouragement to service industries. It is estimated that over the last 12 years for every three

jobs created in manufacturing industries five service jobs have been made available. Today, I understand that the manufacturing sector employs only 38 per cent. of the work force. This makes it essential that investment incentives are made available for service industry jobs as well as manufacturing industry jobs.
I suggest that the Minister, when considering with the CBI and the TUC the future of REP, should take account of two matters. First, on the evidence submitted by the CBI, it is essential that REP or something like it should be continued in the Northern Region. I suggest as strongly as I can that for the health of the Northern Region, and in order to sustain the economic growth which we now welcome, the Minister should extend REP, or something like it, to both service and manufacturing industries. This, indeed, would be a great contribution.
The Government are relying far too much on expansion of the national economy for the solution of regional problems. We cannot possibly begin to solve our problems unless we have sustained growth in the economy. We readily acknowledge that. Unemployment in the development areas falls when it falls nationally, but the gap between the regions remains in times of both recession and boom.
I should like to mention the inequalities and injustices that persist, which have been skirted over by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side. I remind the House that we have not been talking about a geographical location on the borders of Scotland that anybody south of Potters Bar knows little about and where strange people live; we have been talking about families who are anxious to provide a good and rising standard of living.
At the latest count—I was amazed when I was reminded of the differences—the average household income in the South-East was £43·67 per week, compared with £34·56 in the Northern Region. With that differential it is no use preaching about boom, and so on. People in the Northern Region know that they cannot provide for their families the resources and facilities which are taken for granted in other parts of the country. In the Northern Region 7·2 per cent. of full-time male


workers employed in manual work take home less than £20 a week, as against 5·7 per cent. in the South-East. I ask the Minister to note that at the last count 21·4 per cent. of men in full-time work in the Northern Region were taking home less than £25 a week.
Work is a human need. Not only is it a means of livelihood; it gives social status and function. When a man working a full week is paid less than he could expect to get from social security, no incidence of means-tested benefits is any substitute for the indignity of receiving a wage of that kind. No means-tested benefits can make up for the loss of dignity and of self-respect implied in such a state of affairs.
Another sad feature of regional inequality—and this comes to the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott)—is the withering and breaking up of existing communities. This is something which has made a great personal impact on me. At the end of the war I was all for people moving to areas where there were better facilities and amenities, swimming baths, new towns and cities, and so on. I have changed my mind. Miners and their families have always lived in closely knit communities. Today, many of those communities have been broken up, and even where they have dreary rundown environments great social and psychological costs are involved when we allow villages to wither away.
In far too many communities of the North our brightest youngsters, having made the grade in higher education, can find no outlets for their skills and talents except by moving to more affluent areas. This is a great wastage and a great social loss, and provides many of our social problems. We have to strike a balance between planning for reasonable mobility and the preservation of established and cherished communities. Large cities, and even new towns, do not offer the attractive life style for which many people look today.
Let us examine the educational facilities. Here I have time only to give one figure. At the last count 65·1 per cent. of children in the South-East stayed on after the statutory school leaving age. The

equivalent figure in the North was 48·5 per cent. In the health services, a general practitioner in the North has far more patients than has the corresponding general practitioner in the South. Much publicity was given last week to patients suffering from arthritis, who had to wait twice as long for a bed in the North as they would have done in the South. It is the kind of "two nations" about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) spoke.
The truth is that we have to face a situation today where living standards have improved in the North and where there has been a change in the environment. Much has been done, but much remains to be done. The gap is still there and cannot be closed without positive regional policy. The Government's attitude has been far too negative. When they came to office they believed that if they let loose market forces they would solve the problems, but even the Prime Minister and others have changed their minds about that and are now standing on their heads in that respect. Tonight we are making a plea—indeed, a demand—for positive regional policies.
Regional problems are stubborn and persistent. That is what the motion says. They are a source of waste to the nation and bring inequality and injustice to thousands of decent families in the development areas. The South-East has a regional problem no less serious than that of the Northern Region, but it is of a different kind. It is a problem of overdevelopment in the South-East, and I must say that the Government seem to be quite prepared to allow it to go on—when we think of some of the prestige projects coming along. Over-development increases congestion and, indeed, inflation, and leads to ever-increasing demands on the public purse to cope with the social and human problems created, and to make life tolerable, let alone civilised, in the modern complex industrial society that we are creating.
The plea in our motion is in the best interests of the whole nation. It is not a plea for the Northern Region alone. We are asserting the right of men and women in every part of the country to regular and satisfying work. We are asserting the right of every youngster—above all, of every youngster—to have equal educational opportunities wherever


his family may live, and the full development of his talents. We are asserting the right of every family to improved living standards. We believe that only a positive regional policy offering consistent preferential treatment will abolish the imbalances in areas like Northern Region, which, in the past, through no fault of their own but because of rundown in basic industries, have suffered deprivation. We must give them more and more preferential treatment. I can assure the House and the Minister that we do not come saying, "Give us these things"; we say, "Give us the opportunity." It is not a matter of being handed things on a plate. We want an opportunity provided by exploiting all our resources.
I remind the Minister, too, that the Northern Region includes some of the most beautiful parts of Britain. We have an improving environment. We want the opportunity to improve it further, so that our people may have equal access to the quality of life that other regions take for granted.

9.40 p.m.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I believe that this is the first time that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) has spoken from the Front Bench. I hope that he will not think it presumptuous of me if I congratulate him very warmly. In education debates I used to enjoy very much listening to him, and I think that the whole House has listened with considerable enjoyment to what he has had to say tonight.
Inevitably, in winding up a debate, one concentrates on areas of disagreement. I shall be disagreeing a great deal with what the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have said. I agree with him fundamentally on a number of the major propositions that he asserted. First, I agree that over a very long period the Northern Region has had to undergo major structural changes. Although Governments have certainly made their mistakes about regional policy, I have not the least doubt that if there had not been a regional policy over the past decades we should be faced with a situation which was even more serious than it is today.
Secondly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—this point was also made by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr.

William Rodgers) and my. hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot)—that this is very much the time to be concerned with regional policy and that the opportunities when the economy is going well are far greater than in times of difficulty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigh-house and Spenborough said, the time to mend the roof is when the sun is shining. That most certainly is the Government's attitude. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his Budget speech that for just this reason we intend to maintain to the full our regional incentives. The House will have noted that despite cutbacks in Government expenditure there is no change in the system of regional incentives that we are operating in the regions.
There is no doubt that the effect of the Industry Act and of these measures is helping with a very substantial upturn in investment in the Northern Region today. Looking simply at selective assistance—I was asked about Section 7 of the Industry Act—it has been decided by the Regional Industrial Development Board to offer assistance for over 70 projects which are expected themselves to create 6,000 jobs in three years. The hon. Gentleman need not worry that that is the limit of the jobs which we intend to create in the next three years, because the board is now considering a substantial number of further applications and hopes, by the end of July, to have secured the first century of positive decisions. It has to be remembered that each of these jobs is in manufacturing industry and is likely to create a number of other jobs in the service industries.
There has been a great deal of emphasis in the debate on the importance of service industries and of office accommodation. I have been very anxious to look at the present arrangements for encouraging service industries and particularly office jobs to the regions in the hope of supplying still more effective incentives. Although I cannot make an announcement on this subject tonight I hope to be able to do so fairly shortly.
It is important that we should realise the extent of overseas investment in the Northern Region. There has been some discussion by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring


(Mr. Urwin) about attracting foreign investment. I hope that there will be no doubt in any part of the House about the importance of continuing to attract foreign investment. It has been the policy of successive Governments that we welcomed overseas investment and went out to get it. One detects an unfortunate tendency on the part of some hon. Members of the Opposition these days to characterise any company that works in more than one country as a multi-national and to use that as a term of abuse. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is perhaps the worst offender in this respect.
This is of fundamental importance to the debate, because there are 35,000 men employed in the Northern Region already in firms from overseas. We are seeing at the moment—I have a list here—a very substantial number of firms attracted into the region by virtue of its excellent location in relation to the Common Market. I therefore hope that there will be no doubt in any part of the House that we want to see that investment attracted and I hope that such notions as are contained in the recent Labour proposals for trying to insist—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have had this reaction once or twice, but the Labour Party has produced its proposals.

Mr. Urwin: rose——

Mr. Chataway: The fact is that in relation to overseas investment, which is of fundamental importance to the North Eastern region, the Labour Party has said that when in government it will seek to appoint directors not only to United Kingdom subsidiaries but to the parent companies of multi-nationals. If hon. Members think that that is helping to attract overseas investment they should think again.

Mr. Urwin: I am grateful to the Minister for at last giving way. Will he accept from me, if his hearing betrayed him during the course of the contributions from this side, that neither I nor any of my right hon. or hon. Friends attempted in any way to denigrate the activities of multi-national companies operating in the Northern Region or, in-

deed, those of any firms coming from outside this country? What I said was that there was some scope for saying that discipline should be introduced on the investment of multi-nationals so that it is directed to the areas where it is most needed.

Mr. Chataway: I am delighted that the hon. Member has said that. If he could get those views translated into this document in due course, it would be very helpful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. George Grant) referred to the advance factory programme. I was able to announce the biggest ever advance factory programme for the Northern Region earlier this year of 240,000 million sq. ft. We have seen a very rapid take-up of advance factories over recent months. We still have advance factories available—a good many of them older ones. A further half-dozen will become available shortly, when their modernisation is completed.
I accept completely the importance of moving quickly with the new factories under the advance programme. Three factories are now under construction and will be completed by October. Three more will be started by July this year, and eight more in August or early September. It is hoped to start up to eight more by the end of November. I accept entirely the importance of pressing ahead with this programme, in view of the strong demand for factory space in the Northern Region.
The hon. Members for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) and Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) and Brighouse and Spenborough stressed the importance of training. There can be no question about the growing importance of training in the Northern Region. We have seen a substantial increase in the number of places in general training centres. Whereas 10 years ago there were only 80 places, today there are 1,642. That will be pushed up to over 2,000 very shortly. Thirty per cent. of people who completed courses in 1972 did so under schemes for sponsored training for workers nominated by employers. That is expanding steadily.
It is important that we attempt by every means to persuade more people to take advantage of these opportunities. There is a substantial difference in the occupancy rate of general training centres between the Northern Region and the rest of the country. In the United Kingdom as a whole it is 82·9 per cent., whereas in the Northern Region it is 73·7 per cent. I know that there arc reasons why it is difficult for many people to train, but there is undoubtedly a job to be done in persuading many more people to take advantage of these expanding opportunities.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), with whom I should like to continue discussions on one or two of the matters he raised, and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) all stressed the importance of an early decision on shipbuilding. They will appreciate that we have only recently been able to put out the Booz-Allen Report for consultation, and that raises a number of very difficult issues for all of us, such as the size of the industry that we should aim for and the scale of secure employment which it will be right to aim for over the years. It involves issues of weighing claims for limited resources.
We have to consider what means there are of speeding up the introduction of better management in some of the areas where this is lacking, and promoting better labour relations. I think it would be unrealistic to suppose that a decision can be taken totally in isolation from Booz-Allen. I accept that there may be opportunities to be taken in the present buoyant state of the shipbuilding industry, and it is important that we should reach decisions as soon as we can. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that there will be no unnecessary delay.

Mr. Michael McGuire: How quickly will a decision be reached?

Mr. Chataway: I cannot give a date yet, but every effort will be made to do so as quickly as possible.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North on a number of occasions mentioned Seahorse, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and we hope to

satisfy ourselves whether this proposition is commercially viable and technically sound. We have been examining the project with the Court Line and will come to a conclusion as soon as we can.
This is a pretty curious motion in a number of ways. A good many who have spoken have recognised the scale of the improvement that there has been in recent months. The motion refers to "persistent social inequalities" and "low household incomes." The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring referred to some figures which are two or three years old. The House may like to know that average weekly earnings of men manual workers are £35·12. That is the figure for October 1972, the latest date for which we have figures, and that is an increase in real terms since October 1969 of 14·5 per cent. The previous three years under the former administration showed an increase of 9 per cent. We have a good way to go, but we are going a good deal faster than hon. Members opposite did. What is more, that increase is somewhat larger than the increase for the United Kingdom as a whole. So a start has been made in closing the gap.
The motion talks in strong terms of "lack of job opportunities." It does so without a word of apology, and the House ought to know that registered vacancies in May 1973 are nearly 50 per cent. greater than in May 1970. The Opposition motion calls upon the Government to institute action to create new jobs. I think we should have the picture clear. In the course of the last Parliament the then Government succeeded in almost doubling unemployment in the Northern Region and, what is more, as they will know—because I do not think there can be many who believe in totally instant economics—they left a very rapidly rising trend. That rose in 18 months to record levels in the winter of 1971–72. We have turned that trend round. Whereas they left unemployment rapidly rising, we have it back today to the May 1970 figure, and it is falling rapidly, with a far higher level of vacancies.

Mr. Urwin: rose——

Mr. Chataway: Perhaps this is the key to so much of the debate. The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees recognised that while regional policy is enormously important and has


to be sustained—and this Government will sustain it—it is sustained national growth that provides the only opportunity for making real progress in the regions. Therefore we have a right to ask whether Labour Members are still committed to the notion of sustained economic growth.

Mr. Bagier: Are you?

Mr. Chataway: We have seen proposals issued in this last week which we do not believe can be consistent with maintaining economic growth, but, nor, of course do a good many Labour Members. Some of them actually believe that the whole purpose of setting up what is called the National Enterprise Board is to put a stop to the pursuit of economic growth.—[Interruption.] This week we had——

Mr. Urwin: rose——

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Chataway: The Opposition should not be so ashamed of their policy documents that they will not hear any criticism of them. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in extolling the proposals for a National Enterprise Board has given as his main argument, in his words
The pivot of the alternative economic … strategy
—the hon. Gentleman is spokesman from the Opposition Front Bench—
is a slackening of the voracious and never-ending demands of growth.

That is what he says the National Enterprise Board is about. We have had discussions on the proposals to nationalise 25 companies and about whether those proposals may or may not be a firm part of the Labour programme. Certainly the 50,000 people in the Northern Region who are employed in some of the 25 largest companies will examine the proposals with a great deal of anxiety. Any hon. Member who believes that it is simply the 25-companies proposal which is likely to slow growth should read what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has said, or the analysis in the New Statesman this week.

In short, therefore, this motion, which is backed by all the forces of a three-line Whip, demands of the Government that they should do what the Government manifestly are doing, and what the Opposition manifestly failed to do in Government and now make it absolutely clear that they would fail to do again. We have a long way to go in the Northern Region but we have today the opportunity of pulling back on some of the ground that was lost in the last Parliament. The motion must set some sort of record for effrontery but I would suggest to the House that that is not sufficient reason for supporting it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 275.

Division No. 144.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cormack, Patrick


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bray, Ronald
Costain, A. P.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Critchley, Julian


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Crouch, David


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Crowder, F. P.


Astor, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Atkins, Humphrey
Buck, Antony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Awdry, Daniel
Bullus Sir Eric
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jack


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony




Batsford, Brian
Carlisle, Mark
Dixon, Piers


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cary, Sir Robert
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas


Bell, Ronald
Channon, Paul
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Chapman, Sydney
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, W.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Churchill, W. S.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Biffen, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Biggs-Davison, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Blaker, Peter
Cockeram, Eric
Emery, Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Cooke, Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Body, Richard
Coombs, Derek
Farr, John


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Cooper, A. E.
Fell, Anthony


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cordle, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Bowden, Andrew
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Fidler, Michael




Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampslead)
Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lane, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fortescue, Tim
Le Merchant, Spencer
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Foster, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fowler, Norman
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'field)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Loveridge, John
Rost, Peter


Fry, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Russell, Sir Ronald


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
MacArthur, Ian
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gardner, Edward
McCrindle, R. A.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Gibson-Watt, David
McLaren, Martin
Scott, Nicholas


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McMaster, Stanley
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Macmillan.Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Gorst, John
Maddan, Martin
Simeons, Charles


Gower, Raymond
Madel, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gray, Hamish
Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Green, Alan
Mather, Carol
Soref, Harold


Grieve, Percy
Maude, Angus
Speed, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Spence, John


Gryils, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Sprout, Iain


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stainton, Keith


Gurden, Harold
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger
Stokes, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Molyneaux, James
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Money, Ernle
Sutcliffe, John


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tapsell, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper
Tebbit, Norman


Havers, Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Temple, John M.


Hawkins, Paul
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hay, John
Mudd, David
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Murton, Oscar
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Heseltine, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hicks, Robert
Neave, Airey
Tilney, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Trew, Peter


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Normanton, Tom
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hill, S. James A. (Southampton, Test)
Nott, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Holland Philip
Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Holt, Miss Mary
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hordern, Peter
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hornby, Richard
Osborn, John
Waddington, David


Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wall, Patrick


Hunt, John
Percival, Ian
Walters, Dennis


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Ward, Dame Irene


Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Warren, Kenneth


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wells, John (Maidstone)


James, David
Pounder, Rafton
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wiggin, Jerry


Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wilkinson, John


Johnson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Winterton, Nicholas


Jones Arthur (Northants S.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy
Woodnutt, Mark


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Worsley, Marcus


Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


King, Evelyn (Dorset. S.)
Redmond, Robert
Younger, Hn. George


Kirk, Peter
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)



Kitson, Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Walter Cleeg and


Knox, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
 Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Booth, Albert


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)


Allen, Scholefield
Baxter, William
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Beaney, Alan
Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)


Armstrong, Ernest
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Bradley, Tom


Ashley, Jack
Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Broughton, Sir Alfred


Ashton, Joe
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Robert C.(N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Barnes, Michael
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Buchan, Norman







Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Padley, Walter


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfield, Leslie
Paget, R. T.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pardoe, John


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northleld)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Perry, Ernest G.


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Prescott, John


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Radice, Giles


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby S.)
Rankin, John


Cronin, John
Jones Barry (Flint, E.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davidson, Arthur
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kerr, Russell
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kinnock, Ne'.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lambie, David
Roper, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamborn, Harry
Rose, Paul B.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Rowlands, Ted


de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Sandelson, Neville


Delargy, Hugh
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dempsey, James
Leonard, Dick
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Sillars, James


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius



Loughlin, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Duffy, A. E. P.




Dunn, James A.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
McBride, Neil
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)




Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Edelman, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (Lanarkshire. N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, Tom
Machin, George
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Evans, Fred
Mackie, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)




Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ewing, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Maclellan, Robert
Summerskill Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B' ham, Ladywood)
McMillan Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Swain, Thomas


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamera, J. Kevin
Taverne, Dick


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Foot, Michael
Marquand, David
Tinn, James


Ford, Ben
Marsden. F.
Tomney, Frank


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tope Graham


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mayhew, Christopher
Torney, Tom


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, John
Varley, Eric G.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Millan, Bruce
Walden Brian (B'm'ham All Saints)


Golding, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milne, Edward
Wallace, George


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Watkins, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William
Weitzman, David


Grant, John D (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White. James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock William


Hamling, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King
Williams Alan (Swansea)


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oram, Bert
Woof, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice



Hilton, W. S.
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Horam John
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Michael Cocks and


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mr. Tom Pendry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put;—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 273.

Division No. 145]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Loveridge, John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fortescue, Tim
McCrindle, R. A.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin


Astor, John
Fowler, Norman
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Atkins, Humphrey
Fox, Marcus
McMaster, Stanley


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Macmillan. Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Maddan, Martin


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gardner, Edward
Madel, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mather, Carol


Bell, Ronald
Godber, Rt. Hn. B
Maude, Angus


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Benyon, W.
Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Biffen, John
Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Green, Alan
Mitchell. David (Basingstoke)


Blaker, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Molyneaux, James


Body, Richard
Grylls, Michael
Money, Ernle


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector


Bowden, Andrew
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Montgomery, Fergus


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper


Bray, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Michael (Sallsbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mudd, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Murton, Oscar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Harrison, Col. Sir Norwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Buck, Antony
Haselhurst, Alan
Neave, Airey


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Burden, F. A.
Havers, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hay, John
Nott, John


Carlisle, Mark
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Onslow, Cranley


Cary, Sir Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Channon, Paul
Hicks, Robert
Orr. Capt. L. P. S.


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hlley, Joseph
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, John (Harrow W )


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hill, S. James A.(Southampton,Test)
Parkinson Cecil


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Phillip
Percival, Ian


Cockeram, Eric
Holt, Miss Mary
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Cooke, Robert
Hordern, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Coombs, Derek
Hornby, Richard
Pink R. Bonner


Cooper, A. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia
Pounder, Rafton


Cordle, John
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastlelgh)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John



Crouch
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Critchley, Julian
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Crowder, F. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell Miss J. M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
James, David
Raison, Timothy


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. Jack
Jessel, Toby
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dean, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Redmond, Robert


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dixon, Piers
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Drayson, G. B.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Knox, David
Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)


Emery, Peter
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Farr, John
Le Merchant, Spencer
St John-Stevas, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)
Scott, Nicholas


Fldler, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott-Hopkins, James




Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Walters, Dennis


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tebblt, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene


Shersby, Michael
Temple, John M.
Warren, Kenneth


Slmeons, Charles
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wells, John (Maldstone)


Sinclair, Sir George
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wilkinson, John


Soref, Harold
Tilney, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Spence, John
Trew, Peter
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Sproat, Iain
Tugendhat, Christopher
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Stainton, Keith
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Woodnutt, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Younger, Hn. George


Stokes, John
Waddington, David



Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sutcliffe, John
Walker, Rt. Kn. Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Walter Clegg and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Tapsell, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek



Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wall, Patrick





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Allen, Scholefield
Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dormand, J. D.
John, Brynmo


Armstrong, Ernest
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Ashley, Jack
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Ashton, Joe
Driberg, Tom
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Atkinson, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Dunn, James A.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Barnes, Michael
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Judd, Frank


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kelley, Richard


Baxter, William
Ellis, Tom
Kerr, Russell


Beaney, Alan
English, Michael
Kinnock, Neil


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Fred
Lamble, David


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Brldgeton)
Ewing, Harry
Lamborn, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lamond, James


Bishop, E. S.
Fisher,Mrs.Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Latham, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lawson, George


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Leadbltter, Ted


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leonard, Dick


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Foot, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bradley, Tom
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Forrester, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Loughlin, Charles


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McBride, Neil


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McCartney, Hugh


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Golding, John
McElhone, Frank


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McGuire, Michael


Cant, R. B.
Gourlay, Harry
Machin, George


Carmichael, Nell
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mackie, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackintosh, John P.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maclennan, Robert


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamare, J. Kevin


Concannon, J. D.
Hamling, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Conlan, Bernard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsden, F.


Cronin, John
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mayhew, Christopher


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Horam, John
Mendelson, John


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mikardo, Ian


Davidson, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Huckfield, Leslie
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Milne, Edward


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hamplon, Itchen)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Molloy, William


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Deakins, Eric
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Janner, Greville
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)







Moyle, Roland
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Murray, Ronald King
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tinn, James


Oakes, Gordon
Roper, John
Tomney, Frank


Ogden, Eric
Rose, Paul B.
Tope, Graham


O'Halloran, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Torney, Tom


O'Malley, Brian
Rowlands, Ted
Tuck, Raphael


Oram, Bert
Sandelson, Neville
Urwin, T. W.


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Varley, Eric G.


Orme, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin


Oswald, Thomas
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton.N.E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wallace, George


Paget, R. T.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David


Palmer, Arthur
Sillars, James
Weitzman, David


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silverman, Julius
Wellbeloved, James


Pardoe, John
Skinner, Dennis
Wells, William (Walsall. N.)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Small, William
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool Exchange)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Whilehead, Phillip


Pavitt, Laurie
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Whitlock, William


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Perry, Ernest G.
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Prescott, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Probert, Arthur
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Radice, Giles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Woof, Robert


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley



Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Michael Cocks and Mr. Tom Pendry.


Roberta, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)



Roberta, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Question accordingly agreed to.


Resolved.


That this House welcomes the vigorous regional policy of Her Majesty's Government, which is now reducing unemployment and improving living standards in the Northern Region.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to European Parliament (Supporting Services) may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Gray.]

INTERNATIONAL COCOA ORGANISATION

10.25 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): I beg to move,
That the International Cocoa Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.
This order is needed to give legal personality to the International Cocoa Organisation in accordance with Article 21(1) of the International Cocoa Agreement 1972. We cannot ratify the agreement unless this order has been made. I shall briefly explain the background.
The United Kingdom has long supported the concept of an international agreement on cocoa. We played a prominent rôle in the lengthy negotiations which led to the conclusion of an agreement last autumn. On 15th November 1972 we became the first country to sign it.
This agreement aims, by the use of export quota and "buffer stock" arrangements, to reduce excessive fluctuations in the price of cocoa and to ensure adequate supplies at prices fair to both producers and consumers.
The agreement should be of benefit in helping to stabilise the economies of countries such as Ghana and Nigeria which depend on cocoa for much of their export revenue. Cocoa is of course well-known to be vulnerable to extreme fluctuations of price. Most cocoa-producing and consuming countries—with the exception of the United States—have joined, or are expected to join, the agreement. It will enter into force by the last day of this month provided sufficient countries have by then ratified it or applied it provisionally.
The International Cocoa Organisation is the body which is being established to

administer the International Cocoa Agreement. Despite the title of the order, which follows the precedent of similar orders made under the International Organisations Act, it will only confer upon the organisation the legal capacities of a body corporate. Broadly speaking, this means the capacity to enter into contracts, to acquire and dispose of property and to take part in legal proceedings. The order confers no additional privileges and immunities. We have, however, offered London as a head-quarters and we hope that the organisation will be established here. If it is, the approval of the House will be sought for another order to confer upon the organisation, and persons connected with it, appropriate immunities and privileges. The scale of these would be a matter for negotiation with the organisation but we would expect them to be similar to those enjoyed by the other commodity organisations in London.
Perhaps I should also mention that another step which has to be taken before we can ratify the International Cocoa Agreement is to enact legislation in order that we can give effect to one of its economic provisions. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expects to be introducing a short Bill for this purpose tomorrow. This is a separate issue, however, and not something with which I am concerned today. What I am commending to the House is that it should approve this order so that the United Kingdom can, when the time comes, ratify an agreement for which we have worked long. In doing so, the House will be demonstrating its support for an agreement which is likely to be of considerable benefit to the developing countries concerned.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I do not think I need delay the House on this order. As the Minister of State said, it is addressed entirely to the question of the conferment of corporate status on the International Cocoa Organisation, and if and when the question of diplomatic immunities and privileges were to arise there would be a separate order.
One hopes that, as in the case of other commodity organisations, London might prove to be centre of this organisation, too. The Opposition certainly hope that


negotiations will be conducted to that end. London has a reputation for efficiency and for being able to produce the highly qualified and rather rare personnel to operate this kind of institution.
The present order flows from an agreement which in turn flowed from the work of the UNCTAD, and successive United Kingdom Governments have taken a lead. The object of the agreement—an agreement which has commended itself to all Members in this House—has been to try to stabilise and maximise the export trade of underdeveloped countries, such as Ghana and Nigeria, whose wealth is almost completely confined to one primary product. It is a long haul to get the right sort of arrangement to help these countries to help themselves to generate from what resources they have the capital necessary for their accelerated development. The cocoa agreement, like one or two other commodity agreements discussed by the House recently, is a case in point where real benefit has accrued and will accrue in the future to such countries.
I welcome very much the right hon. Gentleman's explanation and his assurance that, if we succeed in attracting this organisation to London, he will give us a more extended explanation of what will follow, namely, the much—debatedand still in the future to be debated—question of the extension of special diplomatic immunities and privileges.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the International Cocoa Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (SUPPORTING SERVICES)

10.32 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House and following the resolution come to by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on 20th March and contained in the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee ordered by the House to be printed on 17th April

(H.C. 69-ii), supporting services broadly equivalent to those provided for the delegations of other member nations should be made available from the beginning of this financial year to Members of this House and of the House of Lords who are members of the European Parliament for the purpose of attending meetings of the European Parliament and of its Committees.
I am sure that all hon. Members, whatever their views about Europe, would feel that our Members of the European Parliament should have all the backing they need to ensure that they are not placed at a disadvantage compared with Members of the European Parliament from other countries. The purpose of this motion is to enable them to be provided with the supporting services, such as assistance by Clerks and other facilities that they will need.
Although I intend to introduce the motion tolerably briefly, I shall of course reply to any points made by hon. Members, or if I am unable to answer any points tonight I shall make certain that hon. Members concerned are informed.
The Services Committee has already passed a resolution broadly on these lines, but perhaps I should tell the House what particular services we have in mind. First, our Members will need some assistance from Clerks and other secretarial and clerical staff when preparing in this country for meetings of the Assembly. I have in mind that there might be one Clerk from each House who would be specialists in this field.
Next, when British Members attend meetings of the Assembly, they will need the services of a Clerk and appropriate secretarial support available to them on the spot. This is in line with what other member Governments provide for their Members.
Then again, some form of special mail service between London and Strasbourg may be helpful to our Members, especially in dealing with their constituency mail which, surprisingly enough, does not diminish when Members are abroad——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is all this to be in addition to the £25 tax-free expenses which they get?

Mr. Prior: That is a separate issue from the expenses allowed to Members——

Mr. Lewis: Is it £25 a day, tax-free?

Mr. Prior: —for the execution of their duties——

Mr. Lewis: Will the Leader of the House now answer my question? Is it £25 a day, tax free, which these people get by way of expenses? If they are Members of another place, do they also get their £8·50 a day expenses, tax free? The engineers, bricklayers and carpenters want to know what these people are getting.

Mr. Prior: My understanding is that the Members of the other place get their allowance only when they actually attend the other place, so they would not be entitled to both their expenses from the European Parliament and their allowance in another place. Our own Members obtain the full allowances to which they are entitled——

Mr. Lewis: What are they?

Mr. Prior: I have not the actual figures with me. But I do not argue with the hon. Gentleman's figures which, broadly speaking, are correct. These expenses are——

Mr. Lewis: Tax free?

Mr. Prior: They are not tax free, in fact——

Mr. Lewis: They are tax free.

Mr. Prior: They are not tax free. They have to be justified——

Mr. Lewis: Oh!

Mr. Prior: They are to enable Members to pay their legitimate expenses and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, £25 a day may seem a great deal, if that is the correct sum, but, as I understand it from my hon. Friends and from other hon. Members who have been to Strasbourg and other places, it is not by any means a sum which allows for a great deal of extravagance——

Mr. Lewis: Do they get payment in the Cayman Islands?

Mr. Prior: That is a totally irrelevant remark——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)

will please not make observations from a sedentary position.

Mr. Prior: Finally, when Committees of the European Parliament visit this country, while the European Parliament expects to pay the cost, there will be some expenses which as host country we ought to meet.
These are the main facilities that we have in mind at present. No doubt others will arise in the future.
I am not asking the House to agree to a proposal which is completely open-ended. The motion would allow facilities to be provided only if they were broadly mirrored by those provided by other member countries. Nor will there be duplication of services provided by the European Parliament itself. Of course, the European Parliament provides extensive administrative and clerical supporting services for its Members. For example, three Clerks from this House are now with the European Parliament. But these central services are provided for the European Parliament as a whole, and other countries besides ourselves have found it necessary to supplement them for the specific service of their Members.
I hope that the House will agree to this uncontentious motion, which I believe will greatly help the British Members to make an effective contribution to the work of the European Parliament. As I said at the beginning of my brief remarks, I cannot believe that any hon. Member of this House wishes other than to see that its Members are properly catered for when they are on service abroad in the interests of this country.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I am not clear what the right hon. Gentleman means by the provision of postage to help Members of the European Assembly with their correspondence. Does this mean merely a redirection to Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxembourg or wherever it may be, and then a separate postal service to this country to tie up with the present free postal service, or is it proposed to give additional support to these Members in terms of secretarial facilities which at present are paid for by Members out of their own pockets?

Mr. Prior: There will be no additional support in terms of secretarial services for constituency duties.
We wish to consider two possibilities—first, a special air bag service for Members' mail between London and Strasbourg, or, secondly, with the agreement of the French postal authorities, a special data post service between London and Strasbourg while the European Parliament is meeting. Data post is a special international postal service guaranteeing overnight delivery, but at present it operates only between a small number of countries. Those are the alternatives which will be looked at, provided that the motion is passed.

Mr. Neil Marten: If this mail comes on a five-day sitting, Monday to Friday—I think there is one coming up in July—it might amount to 200 letters. That is about the average number of letters from constituents in five days. What secretarial help will be made available to Members to deal with that amount of mail while they are abroad?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, because it shows the difficulties under which Members of the European Parliament have to work. I am not suggesting that the House should provide these services for our Members at the moment. However, I believe that we shall have to see how things work out over the next few months. I want our Members to have the best possible services. They undertake extremely arduous duties. Therefore, it would be in the interests of the House and the country to give them every possible facility. Naturally, this should be done in as economic a way as possible.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: How much will it cost?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman keeps worrying about the cost. He must realise, as I do only too well, that the accounting officer for all the moneys spent in this House, the Clerk of the House, is not one to allow the House of Commons vote to be used in an uneconomic way. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman need have no worry that there is, as it were, free money available for Members who go to Strasbourg.
With those assurances and the undertaking that we shall wish to scrutinise the use of money for this purpose very care-

fully, I hope that hon. Members will agree that the motion should be accepted.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: Since the Opposition do not believe in sending a delegation to Europe, one should say that this is a pure example of the right hon. Gentleman giving cash to the Government's supporters.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Lonrhoism.

Mr. English: It does not add to the confidence of Members of this House or of people outside when they see the body which is described by law in the Treaty of Rome as the European Assembly described by a different title as the European Parliament. We know that that body describes itself like that, quite illegally because it has no power to change the wording of the treaty, but we expect more of a Member of the Government than to use such a term in a motion before the House when he knows it is illegal under the law of the Community which, by act of the Government, is now the law of this land.
I suggest that this is an excessive motion. The right hon. Gentleman said that there will be a check on it and that the services will be broadly equivalent to those provided for the delegations of other member nations. That sounds rational. The right hon. Gentleman said that no Member will want us to have fewer services. But traditionally this House has been more abstemious than other European countries' legislatures. For example, many European Members of Parliament are paid extremely high salaries compared with others. Because their salaries are so high they are expected to contribute to their own political parties. Therefore, there is a concealed subsidy to political parties. Certain practices in other Parliaments—I could list them—have been followed in the European Parliament with, I understand, procedural disadvantages in some cases.
For example, it is quite frequent, as I understand it, for a committee to meet on a given occasion to discuss something, but there is no rule of progress as we have here, so that such a committee may meet on a second occasion to discuss the same thing because some Members were not present previously. The net effect


of frequent short meetings is to increase travelling allowances, expense allowances and other items. We all know how it works: if one has a standard rate per day and there is a series of little meetings at different times, one gets rather better travelling allowances than if such a committee were to sit solidly for a good week's work.
It is not sufficient to say that the only control that this House will have over the motion once it is passed is that the amount involved will be broadly equivalent to the amounts for other delegations. In other words, one decision of one member of the Nine will so alter the structure that it will cease to be broadly equivalent. It will probably go up. I cannot imagine that it will go down.
I hope, also, that the right hon. Gentleman will take some care to answer some of the points made in an article by Andrew McEwen in the Daily Mail this morning. There it was stated, for example, that the motion was being introduced because
The Treasury has played merry hell by cutting off the MPs'
—he means the members of the delegation to the European Assembly—
support staff of Civil Servants—secretaries, road managers and breathless young organisers.
The Leader of the House said that he would provide some Clerks of the House, who are not civil servants and there may be a mistake there, but one would wish to have an assurance from him that civil servants are not being used for the service of people who are not Ministers of the Crown. If they are being so used it would be a considerable breach of the normal principles of Government in this country.

Mr. Prior: Let me answer at once: we are dealing with Clerks of the House.

Mr. English: I took it that that was a mistake in the article, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance that that is the case.
In addition, and this is of some importance since we are to provide services broadly equivalent to those of others, would the Leader of the House state what his Government's policy is with regard to the siting of the European Assembly? In my view, it is quite clear that it ought

to be with the European Commission and Council's headquarters in Brussels, but what no-one can conceivably defend is that it should be in both Luxembourg and in Strasbourg.
I quote again from the article in the Daily Mail:
Budget officials tell me that a fixed Parliament would save £260,000 on travelling costs 
—and that is something that is paid in part by us:
£625,000 on rent of buildings, and £195,000 on publications and incidentals. It
—that is the fixed European Assembly:
could cut the staff by 5 to 10 per cent.
It is obvious that the Government ought to have a policy on this issue. We have never heard it expressed: the Government seem to be quite happy with the status quo. When has any member of the Government raised the issue in the Council of Ministers, or when do they propose to raise it? When, for that matter, have the delegations sent by the Conservative Government to the European Assembly raised it in the European Assembly, or when do they propose to do so? As I say, there might be a conceivable argument about the site, although I should have thought it obvious that the site of the executive Government of the Common Market should also be the site of its discursive assembly. Surely no one can defend this extraordinary situation of the officials, staff and meetings being in two places, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, at the cost of the European taxpayers, including our own.
Perhaps I should address another point to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), who is sitting behind the Leader of the House. The article goes on to say:
Not that the MP's lot is a wholly unhappy one. Once a month Peter Kirk has an airliner all to himself. The MPs charter an Andover plane from the Civil Aviation Authority and on the way back twenty-one get out at Heathrow. The plane flies on to its home base at Stansted with only Kirk and two pretty hostesses in the back.
If that is not true, it ought to be denied at once. If it is true, a different situation arises.

Mr. Peter Kirk: It is perfectly true. The airline happens to have this airliner based at Stansted, which is in my constituency. It is a matter of


convenience. I fly on from Heathrow to Stansted I pay the difference. There are two very charming hostesses on the flight.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I, too, would like the charming hostesses. I am glad that he made the point that he pays the difference. That is the essential difference, which is not made in the article.

Mr. Kirk: We all pay. What is the hon. Gentleman trying to prove?

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman said that he paid the difference. If he is talking about Common Market travelling allowances, out of which this is paid, do hon. Members make a profit or a loss out of it? Let us be quite clear. If it is merely a case of getting a travelling allowance and then using it for such purposes because it is a substantial travelling allowance, that does not mean that an hon. Member is paying. It is the European taxpayer who is paying. Let us be honest about it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The workers are paying for it.

Mr. English: I turn to another aspect of this European Assembly also mentioned in the article, which states:
If the Common Maket subsidises butter for Russians, why not holidays for Britons? Indeed it will, if asked nicely. Drop a line to the European Parliament in Strasbourg or Luxembourg saying you'd like to visit, and they will contribute £6 to £12 towards travel expenses, depending on where in Britain you live. Last week there were 1,600 visitors, but none from Britain.
They would apparently like to encourage them from Britain, too.
Does this seem a proper use of taxpayers' money? Our taxpayers are part of the European taxpayers. These days, when people are sometimes concerned about Parliament, should not we suggest to them that we would even subsidise their quite substantial rail fares from different parts of the country to see their Members at work in their own Parliament, if we believe this to be true? If we do not believe it to be true or believe it to be unnecessary—we certainly do not do it in Britain—when will our delegates to this Assembly say that some of these things are regarded in this country as a

fantastic waste of public money, the public money of European taxpayers, which includes British taxpayers?
Whether it happens to go on the individual delegate or for other purposes, or unnecessary purposes such as keeping this institution in its variety of places, it is of some importance that we should be as concerned about expenditure of taxpayers' money in Europe, because a great deal of it is ours, as we are when we are here.
My final point relates to the fourth service which the right hon. Gentleman has provided. We can understand that he may wish to provide the services of Clerks of the House, either here or abroad. We can understand that he might wish to provide a special mail service, although it is difficult to imagine what happens when someone gets his mail if his secretary is in Britain and if the secretarial service is not allowed to be used for the purpose of answering it.
What is the expenditure incurred by us when a committee of the European Parliament comes here? The institution has its own resources. It wastes its own resources on subsidising visits by anybody and on living in two places. It wastes its resources on a vast scale. Is it not capable of paying for the expenses of its committees? The right hon. Gentleman did not make this clear. He said that it pays for most or some of the expenses of its committees but that we have to pay some. What are the costs that we must incur and why should not they be borne by the institution?
If a Committee of the House of Commons goes to anywhere in the world—I believe a sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee went to Germany—we pay. We do not expect the Germans to pay. Why on earth should we pay when a committee of this institution chooses not to pay some costs but chooses as an institution to waste the public's money on a vast scale?

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: Whatever one's view about the Common Market and the work which is being done there, one or two points should be raised tonight, because the way in which the motion has been presented to the House is unsatisfactory.
I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) about the unfortunate choice of description—"European Parliament"—in a motion on the Order Paper, because clearly it is not the European Parliament. I have received a letter today—I wish I had it here now—from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which he refers throughout the letter to the "European Assembly". That is the correct title. It is fooling itself to call itself a parliament, because it has no power. However, that is only a small point.
I was somewhat alarmed to see in the proceedings of the Select Committee on Services, to which our attention is drawn in the motion, that in the sentence before the Committee was discussing the attendance of doorkeepers of the House to the European Parliament and recommended that this should be further considered. We should be told en passant by my right hon. Friend why any consideration is being paid to the suggestion of Doorkeepers of the House of Commons being sent to the European Parliament.
The way the motion is phrased is too vague. Some estimate should be given to the House of the sum involved. This is virtually an open-ended cheque which it is possible will be abused. The House must be more precise in expending the public's money than the terms of the motion would secure. For example, we are asked to agree to
supporting services broadly equivalent to those provided for the delegations of other member nations".
If the other member nations suddenly decided to give all their delegates flats in Brussels——

Mr. English: And in Luxembourg.

Mr. Marten: I will take Brussels or Strasbourg for the moment—and we followed suit, under the terms of the motion, it could add up to a great sum, without the control of Parliament. It is very wrong that this should happen.
My right hon. Friend said that cars would be provided. How many cars—one per delegate; or, as with the car system for junior Ministers here, will it be on a pool system? Unless this is tightened up, the scrutiny by the House

to which my right hon. Friend referred will be virtually impossible, because this could escalate and inflate without the control of the House.
I also agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West about the absurdity of having two sitting places for the Parliament. Surely Europe is supposed to speak with one voice. If it has one Parliament and one Assembly, surely it is entitled to only one building. It cannot have one voice and two buildings in different cities. True, there are two buildings here—the one in which we are now sitting and the other place—but they are in one major centre. We should take steps to bring great pressure to stop this rather foolish divisive nonsense between what are supposed to be partners among the nine Community countries.
I admire the energy of those who go to the European Assembly. I admire them for the time that they spend there. They spend a terrific amount of time travelling, sometimes in great difficulty, and I take this opportunity of paying a tribute to them. I only wish that they could be more effective. On the one occasion when they could have done something for this country they passed a motion in the Assembly in favour of freezing food prices. But what happened? Food prices were not frozen; they rose. That just shows that so far we have done nothing effective. Nevertheless I congratulate them on all the energy which they put into it, and we are glad to see them back here. When they come back to this country they spend a lot of time in this House, and for that we ought to be very pleased.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has rightly drawn attention to the question of the wording in the motion about
supporting services broadly equivalent to those provided for the delegation of other member nations".
This underlines the argument that many of us have advanced during the many debates on entry into the European Economic Community about power slipping away from this Parliament. This wording means that at no time in the future shall we be able in this House


to decide on the type of expenses and services to be provided for the European Assembly.

Sir Robin Turton: Surely it will have to be in the House of Commons Vote. Therefore, the House can challenge the Vote at any time, and any supplementary estimate upon it.

Mr. Milne: That may be so. It is perfectly correct, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that at some stage we shall be able to challenge what has been done, but the point that I am making is that we shall not be able to decide what is to be done because the amount allowed under the term
supporting services broadly equivalent
will be determined by assemblies other than our own. The decision will then have been made when we are actually able to challenge it.
Let me assume, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said, that the representatives of other Parliaments in the European Assembly decide that they are going to increase the amount allowed under the terms of the resolution. By passing this motion tonight we automatically grant that increase as well. If that is not the case, the right hon. Gentleman responsible for this motion should be able to tell us what the cost of these services will be and what safeguards we have over increases in the future.
There has been a tremendous amount of euphoria in the Press about the impact made by our parliamentarians in the European Assembly. One got the impression from reading those articles that this Assembly had been overturned virtually overnight, that Peter Kirk—if I may use that term instead of "the hon. Member"—and his crusaders were completely transforming this Assembly. That is absolute nonsense because the Assembly cannot be transformed. It is not being transformed. Under the agreements that we made and the decision that we took in October 1971 we cannot alter it.
Therefore, on the basis of the proposal before us, the House should refuse to give this particular commitment because we are committing taxpayers' money in Britain to something that we are not completely certain about. As the right

hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) pointed out, we can change this matter in the documents of the House but we can do it only after the action has been taken. This course of action takes us down the slippery slope that many of us foresaw with Common Market membership—the removal of all powers from this Parliament. This may be only a small issue to some but it is indicative of a general trend that has resulted from EEC membership. It is disappointing that it should have been brought on at this late hour because we should have had a major debate.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I shall be brief because I do not want to go as wide as some hon. Members have gone. I merely wish to say on the name of the institution, to which some of us from both sides of the House now go, that it was originally called in the Treaty of Rome the European Parliamentary Assembly. In the 1963 merger treaty it was called the European Parliament and all documents now addressed to it by the Council of Ministers and the Commission are addressed to the European Parliament. I do not want to make anything of this. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government in a motion which it puts down to use the phrase used in the merger treaty.

Mr. Deakins: Will the hon. Member say why the institution was not called the European Parliament in the Treaty of Accession which was approved by this House only a few months ago?

Mr. Kirk: Because the Treaty of Accession referred specifically to the Treaty of Rome and not to the merger treaty. This is a legal matter which I should not particularly like to go into. To try to build up a great case over the use of particular words is not only wasting the time of the House but is unworthy of the hon. Member.
What the Government are asking for tonight, and what I freely admit I have asked the Government to ask the House for, is something that does not apply only to one party in the House. The suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that the Government were making available to their supporters services which were not available to others. The reason they


are not available to hon. Members on the Labour side is that those hon. Members have not chosen to take advantage of them. The Opposition may have different reasons for adopting that attitude. However, we have a delegation in the European Parliament that consists of Members of the Conservative Party, of the Liberal Party, of an independent party and of a body called the Democratic Labour Party to which it might be indelicate of me to refer in this House in the presence of the Opposition, but which exists on a national and local level.
Any time that Labour Members agree to come along the facilities will be available to them as they are to other international delegations.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: How did the hon. Member get elected?

Mr. Kirk: We were elected by this House unanimously. The hon. Member did not vote against me. I remember the night that we were elected, and the hon. Member was not even here. He was not here, and he did not vote against it. It was a unanimous vote of this House, and of the other place as well.
What we are asking for is something broadly equivalent to what other delegations have. This motion is not providing us with opportunities for riotous living in Strasbourg—which anyone who knows Strasbourg knows is impossible anyway—or, indeed, anywhere else. What we are asking for is simply a form of infrastructure enabling us to have the programme in advance, a process of briefing which will be available to members of all parties, as it is now, a process of normal arrangements for delegations of this House proceeding abroad. Nothing more.
What the cost would be it is not for me to say. I cannot work it out. However, it would be very small. We are not asking for anything which supports party political activities in Europe. That is something which does not fall within the scope of this motion, and could not fall within the scope of this motion.
Whether we are doing a good job, and whether we have been doing a good or a bad job in the last six months, is largely irrelevant in this context. I think we have been doing a rather good job, but that is simply because I am biased in

this matter, but whether we are doing a good or a bad job, we are doing a job as a delegation appointed by this House to do certain things—and, in order to do them, we need certain support. This motion asks the House, after six months, to give us that support. This is all that is in question tonight, and I hope the House will accept the motion on that basis.

Mr. Marten: Will my hon. Friend answer my question about cars? Is the idea of a pool of cars, or one each, or what?

Mr. Kirk: I am delighted to answer the question about cars. This was the subject of a resolution by this House before we rose for the Whitsun Recess. One is provided for the Leader of the Liberal Party, and one is provided for the rest of my hon. Friends. I myself have a car provided by the European Conservative Group.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: Other hon. Members may wish to contribute to the debate, and by rising now I am certainly not wishing to interrupt the proceedings in any sense, but I am wishing to make my comments at this stage. They may, conceivably, influence the comments which may be made by others. Alternatively, it may be the case that they have no influence at all. However that may be, I would like to make my comments at this stage.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I missed the first two or three words of his introduction of the motion, and if I missed any factor relevant to what I shall say, I apologise to him. I hope that it will not prove to be the case.
I approach this matter, as I think most of my hon. Friends approach it, as saying that, whatever we may think about the purposes of delegations, whether to the European Assembly or to any other bodies of which we may approve or disapprove, the people we send from this House should be given the facilities which enable them to discharge their duties with dignity and proper support. I have never been in favour of people sent from this House on deputations being put at a disadvantage in discussions with other deputations in the way these matters are arranged. In that sense I am not opposed


to the idea of saying that this House should give facilities to those who go to the European Assembly even though I am opposed to Members of this House going to that Assembly—for reasons which I would be prepared to discuss but which are not specially relevant to this motion, but reasons to which I shall refer obliquely in a few minutes. My hon. Friends can do what they wish, but I am not disputing that we should provide some facilities.
However, I must say, listening to the debate so far, that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) have certainly made a case about the very vague nature of this proposition. To say that facilities should be provided which are "broadly equivalent" to those provided elsewhere provides such an open door for any kind of facilities that it is almost an incitement to those engaged in the Assembly, Parliament or whatever they like to call it, to get together and raise the stakes. If they collaborate they are assured by this House in advance that we shall provide an equivalent for whatever increase may be made elsewhere, or that the Government would be entitled to provide it under this extremely lax definition.
The Government have not been very clever. I now understand the explanation. It is under the inspiration of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) that they have introduced the motion, which explains almost everything. But it is an extremely lax proposal.
I know very well what would have happened if the Labour Government had introduced such a motion for ensuring that amounts were to be provided "broadly equivalent". We do not know what the figure is. We do not know what it will be this year, next year or the year after. We have no understanding of what is to be the report to the House as to how it is to be investigated.
When I read the motion I examined the report of the Services Committee, expecting enlightenment there. Anyone who looks at that document will see how flimsy is the information the Committee has given to the House. I am not a member of the Committee, which makes me all the more eager to offer criticisms. If the Committee wants to convince the

House, it should produce a better report. Why should the House accept its word on a matter of this kind? That is what we are asked to do. We are not asked to accept any evidence or argument. We are not even told who the Committee investigated or what the figures are. Not within £100 million are we told the figure. We are not even told how the Committee discussed the matter. We have the vaguest possible report saying, "This is what we should do", and the Government have accepted it holus-bolus, without any attempt to justify it in detail.
I hope that, whatever else may be the result of the debate, the Government will never again produce a motion that says that we should merely agree to provide resources that are "broadly equivalent" to those supplied in other Parliaments for the same purpose.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden has gone far to justify my case in his intervention in reply to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). He told us how the question of the motor cars that are to be provided was dealt with under a different resolution a little earlier. We have had dribs and drabs of motions brought before the House for providing the amounts required for people who go to the European Assembly.
I approach the matter not as one of tremendous principle but as one of orderly administration, particularly when we are trying to instruct the European Assembly in how it should have control over financial matters. I understand that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden is trying to give its Members elementary lessons in that respect. We should teach them a few elementary lessons here and now. It is not a satisfactory way of dealing with this question that every few months we should be presented late at night with a motion dealing with one particular aspect of the finances and expenses of those who are to go to the European Assembly.
There is the particular question about the hon. Gentleman himself, which I raised when we discussed the delegates being sent to the European Assembly some time ago. We raised it in a most delicate manner, not in an obstreperous way. I said "Here is a matter I should like to return to on a future occasion." I thought we raised it in a way that could


not be regarded as discourteous in any sense. I will raise the question again.
The hon. Gentleman and the Government owe us explanations about the matter. Maybe they have a very good explanation. Maybe the Government are now able to tell me that the arrangements which had been made at that time have now been abandoned and that it is thought fitting to have a different arrangement. I remind the House that it was confirmed to me on a previous occasion that the hon. Gentleman had agreed to an arrangement whereby the salary that he was previously receiving as a member of Her Majesty's Government was to be made up by the European Movement to his salary as a Minister. He said that was a reasonable arrangement. I did not think that it was a reasonable arrangement and I told the House that I did not think that it was reasonable. I am prepared to repeat my reasons for thinking that it is unreasonable and so offensive to the traditions of the way we do things in this House.
The European Movement is in the main, although not entirely, dedicated to the idea of a federal Europe, federal government and a federal parliament. That is the Movement's general theme and it is entitled to campaign for it. But if the hon. Gentleman is to be a spokesman in that Assembly he should be clearly representative and he should be paid by this House. He should not be paid by the organisation towards which he has an obligation in these matters. Will he owe any obligation to the people who are making up his salary?
I gave the Government every opportunity to dispose of the matter. I thought that they would have disposed of it by now. If the Government want to deal with it properly, if they want to have a figure built up as the leader of the delegation sent by this House to the European Assembly, it is proper that they should come before the House and say, "We will pay this individual Member of this House a higher salary than he receives as an hon. Member. We will have a Vote as we would have for an ordinary Minister." That is the proper procedure. If that were done we could have a debate on the principles of the matter. I say again, and I say it most

politely—next time I may not be so polite—that the Government should deal with the matter in the way which I have described. I am not prepared to tolerate the situation where we are asked to have the hon. Gentleman paid for partly by the House and partly by a propagandist organisation outside which is not responsible to anybody here.
When the right hon. Gentleman gets up and speaks in the European Assembly, does he speak as an hon. Member who is answerable to his constituents, even though like the rest of us he did not ask his constituents whether he should go to the Assembly at Strasbourg, Brussels or anywhere else, or is he answerable to the European Movement when he goes to the European Parliament? Will he declare his interest? Will he say, "I happen to be paid by you. I am making a report just as I make a report to the House".
The right hon. Gentleman is in an extremely invidious position because he has been introduced and placarded all over the country as a great figure in these matters. He has said, which I resent, that he has been sent to get on with the job and to shake things up. Who sent him? He was not sent by us to do that. He was not given any instructions by the House. Those instructions were given to him by the Prime Minister.
We understand that he is the spokesman of the Prime Minister and of the Government in the European Assembly. That is another reason which causes some of us to think that the whole arrangement of the European Assembly is so ridiculous. He is not an independent hon. Member speaking in that Assembly. He is someone who is partly paid by the House, although his salary was originally not arranged for him to go to Strasbourg. He is partly paid by a propagandist organisation and he goes to the European Assembly, on his own confession, to put the case of the Prime Minister and not as an independent Member.
Those are some of the matters which we should have out clearly and openly in this House. The great virtue of this place is that we can discuss some of these matters even when they turn up late at night on curious motions which hon. Members do not believe will lead to such


debates. We get such opportunities in this House. That is one of the reasons for causing some hon. Members to think that this House is so different from the kind of institution which the European Movement is seeking to establish. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House thought that the best way to deal with the matter was to make a few taunts—and we have heard many taunts from Government hon. Members—about the Opposition not sending hon. Members to this body in Europe.
The Opposition do not send delegates to the European Parliament, and we are prepared to state to the country why, as we have done on previous occasions. First, we believe that Members of this House should go to other bodies to discharge their parliamentary duties only when they have the sanction and the approval of their own electorates, and not merely the sanction and approval of their parties. Secondly, we believe that the whole question of our entry into the EEC and the European Parliament should have been submitted to the British people. We say that that applies not merely in general but in particular as well.
Other hon. Members may hold different views, but personally I think that it would be wrong for me, having contracted with the people of Ebbw Vale to represent them in this House, to go off to some other body for a week every month in order to perform duties there—for what? The hon. Gentleman's duties are to carry out the Prime Minister's instructions. Whose instructions would I be carrying out? This is the crux of the problem. One cannot have a parliament in which one has members who carry out particular functions of that character. The hon. Gentleman's whole position at the European Parliament is extremely invidious. He should at least start to clear it up. He is paid partly as a Member of Parliament in this House and partly as a propagandist of the European Movement.

Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, for I hate to spoil his beautiful flow. But does he realise that his case is even more persuasive because we cannot question anyone in this House who is on the delegation? I have inquired of the Clerks of the House whether, for example, the hon. Member

for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) could be questioned, and have received the answer that he could not be questioned because lie is only the leader of a party delegation. They thought that the British Vice-President of the European Parliament could be questioned, but no doubt for precisely this reason the Government have carefully made sure that he is a Member of another place.

Mr. Kirk: Lord Bessborough was nominated by me as Vice-President as the best person for the job. It had nothing to do with the Government. Whatever may be the Government's fault, that was entirely mine.

Mr. Foot: I understand. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was eager to say that that was a more persuasive point, but I am not sure that it was. I do not believe that it would be a remedy for the situation, as my hon. Friend suggested, that delegates from this House to the European Assembly should answer Questions here. For whom would they be speaking? About what would they be speaking? For what would they be answerable? The whole situation is anomalous.
That is one of the reasons why I do not believe that we could ever have satisfactory arrangements whereby Members of this House are delegates to this Assembly or other Assemblies. Indeed, I think that one disrupts the processes of this House because the more effective the hon. Member for Saffron Walden may be at Strasbourg or Luxembourg, the more he will be wresting powers from this House. If the hon. Gentleman were to carry through the whole programme he has enunciated, he would carry that disruption of this House much further.
That is another reason why some of us oppose on principle the whole business of sending delegates to the European Assembly. We do not think that it was ever thought out. The hon. Gentleman was noticeably absent from our debates when the European Communities Act was going through. He was not here to take part when we had that one-and-a-half hour or two-hour debate on the question of what form of representation we should have in the European Assembly, while the European Communities Bill was passing through the House.

Mr. Kirk: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to me here. I was a Minister at the time, in another Department and he knows that I could not intervene.

Mr. Foot: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman on that score. I should have remembered that. I fully appreciate that he was debarred from being able to take part and I agree that in that sense what I said was unfair. It does not alter the case which I am making, and that is that the House of Commons was denied by the Government the chance to discuss fully the whole question of what would be the relationship between this Parliament and the Assembly set up in Europe. We had only an abbreviated debate, which the hon. Gentleman was not able to attend because of his Ministerial duties but which many of us thought should have been a full day's debate or even longer. We should have had far more preparation.
This is strictly relevant to the motion. My prophecy is that we will have a dribble of debates of this nature. We have already had a dribble. We had the debate on the sending of delegates. We had another on the motor cars, although we did not have a full opportunity to debate that. We now have this proposition. This motion is drawn in such general terms that if the Government take any notice at all of what the House of Commons is saying tonight they will have to come back and give a clearer account of what is happening in future.
Instead of settling this question of the relationship between this Parliament and the European Assembly before we went in, we are settling it afterwards. I say that that is an extremely unsatisfactory way of doing business. What we are seeking to do—and the hon. Members plays a leading part in this—is to begin an entirely novel process in the history of this country. I am not saying that it is to be objected to because it is novel. We have to undertake novel actions on many occasions. But we ought to appreciate what we are doing.
For us to establish relationships between this Parliament and that Assembly will have a continuous effect on this Parliament as well as on that Assembly. Moreover, we have had disputes—ever since I have been a Member—about the money that is paid to Mem-

bers of Parliament, or their expenses. I can remember bitter disputes about that. Some of us in the Labour Party had to argue for many years against Conservative Members about the pay of a Member of Parliament. We always believed that it was necessary for the functioning of the House that their pay should be increased and the facilities should be improved.
As far as I can see, although it is impossible to judge from this extremely loose motion, the facilities that are to be provided for Members of this Parliament operating at Strasbourg or Brussels will be at least broadly equivalent with those of Members here. In some respects they will be considerably better. It is not very easy to judge from the motion. When we dealt with the question of improving facilities for Members there was a Bill. There were a number of clauses to it. The Government brought it forward and it was discussed with Members and the House. The Government even set up the Boyle Committee to look at these matters and to report to the House and say whether what was proposed was satisfactory.
What we have on this occasion is the report of the Services Committee, which is not the same thing. I am not sure whether the House of Commons, certainly Conservative hon. Members, would have accepted a single report, or a single sentence from the Services Committee, dealing with expenses and facilities for hon. Members. I do not propose to vote against the motion. Maybe we should have considered whether to do so more carefully, but certainly we do not regard the present situation as satisfactory, for all the reasons I have tried to elaborate.
I say that partly for the general reason that the relationship between the British Parliament and the European Assembly not only on questions of financing—is becoming a much more dangerous relationship. The European Assembly will be either a farce or a menace. That is the basis on which we should have voted when this matter was in front of us, but it was impossible for us to do so partly because only half the case was presented. We did not have before us the proposals for economic and monetary union and the proposals for paying part of the hon. Gentleman's salary.
The Opposition are dissatisfied with the present situation. We believe that the Government should come forward with a statement of their attitude—not the attitude of the hon. Gentleman; we do not want to hear what he says at second or third hand at Strasbourg on the inspiration of the Prime Minister, as he confessed. We want to hear the Government's policy. The Government are still answerable to the House of Commons on their general attitude to the European Assembly. We want a general debate in which they will explain their attitude, and a much more detailed, comprehensive account of all the money they are proposing to pay out to make this Assembly function. We want to be able to compare the facilities and expenses provided to Members of the House of Commons here and to Members operating in the Assembly. There is nothing unfair about that. We also want to know what facilities of the House are made available to Members who go to Strasbourg.
I am not opposed to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden and other Members having the assistance of Clerks of the House and the experts who play an extremely important part in the functioning of this House of Commons, but I am bitterly opposed to their having greater facilities than are available to other Members who wish to discharge their functions here. If there is to be any increase in the numbers of people assisting delegations going to Strasbourg or Brussels, there must be a much bigger increase in the facilities provided for people who are conducting operations in this House. We hope that there will be no objection from the Treasury on that account.
If we give the opportunity for the passage of this motion, I hope there will not be any objections if we introduce a motion to provide facilities for Members of Parliament here which are broadly equivalent to those they have elsewhere. Why not cross the Atlantic and provide facilities broadly equivalent to those in the United States? Why stop there? Why not cross the Pacific? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House should not imagine that this motion does not raise these wider issues. Although I think that it would be ill-advised for

us to press the motion to a Division tonight——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why?

Mr. Foot: It is a free country and a free House of Commons. My hon. Friends may do as they wish. I do not wish to deter them. The Labour Party will return to this subject to debate the essential question how we are to preserve the rights of this House of Commons against this farcical or menacing body in Europe. We shall also return to the question whether Members of this House who stay here to do their duty four weeks in every month are penalised or disqualified compared with others who choose to do their duties elsewhere.
As for the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, I hope that before we have the next debate on any question concerned with the finances of those who are sent from this country to Strasbourg or Brussels this invidious question of who pays whom will be cleared up by the Government.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) ranged widely in the questions he raised, and I cannot help feeling that much of his anxious curiosity might have been satisfied previously if only the Labour Party had co-operated in the much earlier suggestion when the project of joining the European Community was first under discussion and if it had supported the offer of an ad hoc committee to consider how all these matters might be inquired into well ahead of the time when they had to be decided. I think that explains a good deal of the hon. Gentleman's uncertainty.
The fact of joining the Community has taken place, and I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale state that in his view delegates from this House should have facilities according to the dignity of the House of Commons where-ever they were sent to serve. Later in his speech he deplored the fact that the salary of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) has had to be made up by voluntary effort on the part of the Conservative Group for Europe, of which I must declare I am an officer. That action was quite without strings. It arose from our desire to


see that Britain was not handicapped at the moment of entry and we were prepared to forgo other important items in our programme to enable Britain to get off to a punctual start.
The real importance of this motion is that it is designed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden has adumbrated, to enable the delegates to act as an effective group. Considered individually, we can all travel to Strasbourg, Luxembourg or Brussels for committees as tourists on holiday, but to be effective as a political group we need a good deal of administrative servicing and underpinning.
There are now 22 Members of both Houses in the European Parliament and they attend meetings in Strasbourg, Luxembourg and possibly some other capital city. Perhaps more important, there are no fewer than 12 committees, plus sub-committees, covering a whole range of subjects which do not coincide exactly with departmental responsibilities in this country. Therefore, there is an immense problem of effective liaison and co-ordination if the British delegation is to act as efficiently as it might. I cannot believe that anybody in this House would wish British representatives to go abroad to any Assembly with less chance of doing their best than they otherwise would have, especially in comparison with other foreign delegations.
First, there is a great problem in arranging travel. It is not just a matter of booking a package holiday. To begin with there is the process of substitutes, and one of the things we need to know individually is who else is likely to be travelling to the meeting. We wish to know whether, for example, we have a full complement for a particular committee. It is obviously more convenient to travel together because one can discuss the business, the agenda and so on on the journey, and there are many ways in which committee representatives can do their job more effectively.
When we are not in the European Parliament or in a committee we are back here as individual Members, and it is not easy to meet as a delegation in this place. Therefore, we always need a reference point that we can contact in order to discover what is happening to the delegation

as a whole. This is one of the important functions of the European Office, and that needs some staffing.
In addition to the organisation of our appearance, we need some organisation of the knowledge available. To appreciate that, one has only to reflect how various Government Departments are doing their best to keep us informed on an enormous range of technical matters exceeding the range of such matters that one deals with as an ordinary back bencher. As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said, these subjects run on for a long time. He rather decried that. But this is the process of government not by the hammer and anvil of Government and Opposition but by the evolution of consensus, and obviously it takes time.
A great body of relevant paper builds up. Some centre has to handle that and make it available. It is small comfort to receive, as I did in my mail this morning, some of the briefs that I was intended to receive before the meeting of the Parliament in Strasbourg last week.
That leads me to the topic of communications. It is not satisfactory to go away, as if on a tourist holiday, cut off both from this place and from our constituencies. It is quite unnecessary, and the idea of instituting, as I should like, a daily courier service between the Members' Post Office and the office of the British delegation is essential. We need information from Departments to catch us up.
Equally I want to know, if any constituent wants to get in touch with me, that there is not more than about 12 hours' delay. That too could easily be arranged, but it needs the authority of this House.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And more money.

Mr. Hill: These are facilities which are required to give us the chance of being efficient in the business that we have to do. Therefore I hope that this House, which is not usually ungenerous as a House—though individuals may be ungenerous—will realise that it is essential that the British representatives should be enabled to develop such power, knowledge, argument and political force as they can as a group. This motion is necessary to bring that into being.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The course of the debate has demonstrated clearly what a difficult position this House has been placed in by the Government. It is therefore right that we should take advantage of this opportunity to explain to the Leader of the House and to the Government what these difficulties are.
Before us we have a motion asking the House to agree to supporting services broadly equivalent to those provided for the delegations of other member nations. We look at the minutes of proceedings of the Committee to glean some additional information. All that we find there is a bald recapitulation of the motion. What is worse is that we do not have available the minutes of evidence that show what arguments were presented to the Services Committee, who wanted what, and why. We are up against a blank wall in endeavouring to find out what is going on and the reasons for the motion coming before the House tonight.
I do not object to adequate facilities being provided for the representatives of the British Parliament when they are carrying out their duties in foreign parts, but all I find when I look at the minutes of the proceedings of the Select Committee is that some discussion took place about the attendance of doorkeepers, after which the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) was apparently examined, and the Committee deliberated. That is all we know about the attendance of doorkeepers We then have this motion about supporting services boldly presented and a resolution that Mr. Speaker be advised accordingly.
We then find that another motion was accepted by the Services Committee to the effect that two additional cars should be authorised for the use of our parliamentary delegation. Additional to what? I did not know that motor cars were already provided. We have picked up a scrap of information in the debate about the motor cars that are already available, but apparently two additional cars are now required.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I think that my hon. Friend was present when the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) remarked upon the fact that the Leader of the Liberal Party or the Liberal dele-

gation was to get a car and then made a facetious comment about some Democratic Labour delegate. Is he aware that if, as is likely, every party so-called is entitled to a car, we could have the situation that every Member had a car. Therefore, each Member of Parliament here could claim the same.

Mr. Lipton: That is an additional point that will have to be investigated at some stage.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for not trying to get this motion through "on the nod", which is what he sometimes tries to do when resolutions from the Services Committee come before the House, and for providing time for the debate. On the other hand, it is fair to point out that the facilities provided for debating the motion will ensure that it gets no coverage in the Press, on radio or television or in any of the media. Therefore, the public will still be completely in the dark about the debate we are having this evening.
It has been pointed out, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), that if a motion of this kind had been presented by a Labour Government all hell would have been let loose. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which a Labour Government would have the nerve to submit such a sloppy, flabby motion, representing an open-ended commitment broadly equivalent to goodness knows what. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We do not know what the Government are asking us to accept. In those circumstances, I must record the strongest possible objection to the motion. Indeed, if need be, and if there is a sufficient volume of support, I am prepared to carry it to a Division.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: I want to address myself to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who seemed to be very upset at what he considered to be improper support for the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) by the Conservative Group for Europe within the European Movement. I thought it extraordinary, coming as it does from a member of a party about which we all are told daily


in the newspapers that that part of it outside the House has a governing influence on the attitudes and policies of that part which is within the House. What the hon. Gentleman had particularly to complain about in the arrangement I cannot imagine. If ever there was a pot which was very black indeed which addressed the kettle, it is the hon. Member.
There are no strings at all attached to the help given by the Conservative Group and the European Movement to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, and no attempt has been made by either the Conservative Group or the European Movement to call some tune. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale should understand that the views of those bodies are not necessarily on all fours with those of the Prime Minister who, he seemed to think, was giving my hon. Friend instructions. The views of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the distance in the future of any direct elections are not those common in the European Movement, which would like to see such elections very much nearer. I want to put on record the fact that there are no strings whatever attached. The hon. Member knows it, and I do not believe that he should have raised the matter in the terms he used.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: Does not my hon. Friend agree that many hon. Members on the Labour side receive a salary from the trade unions and are called to order by the trade unions to explain their attitude, their voting and their behaviour in the House? Is it not incredibly hypocritical, therefore, for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to use those terms about my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Maddan: I agree. I think we have said enough to expose that attitude for what it is worth. But if it was meant seriously, and if it can be taken that the hon. Member at some future time, should the Government of the day decide that the leader of the delegation should be fully and properly remunerated by the House for the responsibility he takes, will join in support of such a proposition, perhaps this present debate has not been wasted.

Mr. Michael Foot: Had the hon. Gentleman been here on the previous occasion when the subject was debated, he would have heard exactly what I said. I said that if it is believed that the leader of the so-called delegation to the Assembly should be paid a higher amount, the proposition should be brought before the House and the House should be able to discuss it. There may very well be a good case for it, but there is no case whatsoever—I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, or any hon. Member, cannot draw the distinction—for having a British representative at that Assembly partly for the House of Commons and partly for a propagandist organisation which is not instructed by the House of Commons and which is dedicated in the main to the creation of a federalist Europe. The whole thing constitutes an invidious situation which the Government should hasten to clear up.

Mr. Maddan: I thought I had dealt with that point and I shall not repeat what I said. But I was present at the previous debate, when the hon. Gentleman did not reveal what his attitude and that of his party would be if the Government of the day brought forward such a proposition. It would be more constructive if he spent more time giving some indication about that, instead of trying to score points which have no validity whatever and are nothing but hypocrisy coming as they do on behalf of a party whose members find themselves in such a position as they now are.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talked about the European Parliament being either a farce or a menace. I should think that that is exactly what was said by some of Simon de Montfort's opponents over 700 years ago. Of course the European Parliament is not perfect and does not have very much influence. Simon de Montfort's Parliament was not perfect and did not have much influence—but, thank God, it started.
I join in the tributes to my hon. Friends who discharge duties in the European Parliament on behalf of this House and the country as a whole.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Prior: The House has given the motion very careful scrutiny indeed. I make no complaint about that. As my


right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) has pointed out, however, expenditure on the services which we have been discussing tonight will be included in the Estimates which have to be laid before the House and which hon. Members can then question if they see fit. There is no question of a service being approved simply because another country provides it. On a matter of this kind, however, where the sole wish of the Government is to help hon. Members concerned, a reasonable amount of discretion should be allowed to us and to the Clerk as accounting officer.
I find it hard to believe that hon. Members seriously think that this discretion would be abused, but should the House ever think that it was being misused it would have the opportunity of making its views clear.
There is no question of a service being provided just because other Governments provide it. It would be provided only if it was clearly right to do so. This evening hon. Members have made a mountain out of the motion before us.
In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) about comparison with Members' allowances, the facilities which we are suggesting in the motion are supporting services for Members of the European Parliament as a whole. They are not personal facilities to individual Members. They are the equivalent services to those provided for Members in this House, such as the Clerk with his secretarial help assisting a Select Committee travelling abroad. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) dealt with this point. He said that it was an organisation of our appearance and all the information that is available. That is perfectly correct on the interpretation that we place on it.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale also complained that we are dealing with this matter in dribs and drabs. He can have it one way but he cannot have it both ways. Either he accepts that the motion will embrace the various needs of Members of the European Parliament as we see them as time passes or he will have to accept that as each occasion arises we shall have to come to the House with a specific motion to deal with a particular

issue. I thought that it was much more for the convenience of the House and much more in line with the spirit of the House in wishing to see its Members served properly when on duties outside the House that we should now have a motion of this nature.
A point was raised about the costs of committee visits to this country. The European Parliament expects to pay all the expenses of visits of its committees to this country. It is not unreasonable that some provision should be made for customary hospitality on behalf of this Parliament on such occasions. I do not believe that there is anyone in this House who is so mean as to wish to try to deny that sort of hospitality.
I deal now with the point about doorkeepers. In so far as other members of the Community occasionally loan staff, including doorkeepers, on a short-term basis to attend sessions of the European Parliament, it seems not unreasonable that we should take our part in such loan schemes. If such temporary loans of doorkeepers lead to additional staffing costs in this House, it is intended that this would be covered in the motion now before us.
The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) mentioned two additional cars. This was a recommendation made by the Services Committee in respect of cars for the delegation to the Council of Europe and has no relevance to the European Parliament or to the motion before us.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If the motion is carried and the Assembly decides to give every Member a car, does it not follow that we would be expected to accord broadly equivalent services to our Members and that every Member could expect a car?

Mr. Prior: If this most unlikely situation should arise, it would still be within the responsibility of the Government and of the accounting officer to provide only such services as we thought were correct and reasonable. This could always be challenged in the House on an Estimate. The hon. Gentleman must have sufficient knowledge of how difficult it is to screw money out of the Treasury, the Government of the day or the accounting officer.
It is greatly to the credit of the United Kingdom Parliament that there is no other Parliament where this matter would be being debated. In every other Parliament it would be taken for granted that these services would be automatically provided. I regard it as a great tribute to the United Kingdom Parliament that it should be prepared to spend about two hours debating what to some may seem a trivial issue but which to others is a matter of great importance involving as it does the scrutiny of the expenditure of public money.

Mr. English: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but will he please leave the accounting officer of the House out of it? The right hon. Gentleman has just suggested that, in spite of the terms of the motion, the accounting officer should not pay something that was broadly equivalent if that something broadly equivalent happened in the future to include other things than that. The accounting officer's duty is to carry out the law and the resolutions of the House. It would be better if the right hon. Gentleman suggested that these things are the responsibility of the Government and of the House and left the accounting officer out of it.

Mr. Prior: I do not altogether agree with that. The truth is that if, as is suggested, Members of Parliament from every other country were allocated cars and it was then considered by our delegation that each United Kingdom Member should have a car, it would first be a matter for the Government of the day to decide whether that was something they were prepared to do. If they were not prepared to do it, that would be an end of the matter. If they were prepared to do it, it would then fall to the duty of the accounting officer to consider whether it fell within the terms of the motion. That is the strict duty of the accounting officer.

Mr. Lipton: Everything falls within the terms of the motion.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is still the responsibility on the Government of the day and on the Minister in charge as to how money under any Vote is spent. After

all, we pass motions which have then to be interpreted and carried through by the responsible Minister. He does not have to spend everything that the House grants him or asks him to spend. This is left to his discretion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) drew attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on the subject of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk). If the occasion arises when the Labour Party joins in sending Members to the European Parliament and at that time it appoints, as it would, a leader to its delegation, I think that would certainly be a suitable time for the Government to ask the House for proper arrangements to be made to cover any salary that the House thinks fit to be paid to the leader of the delegation.
I must tell Labour Members that the Government felt that it would really not be right to ask the House to grant money to the leader of a party delegation, which of course is what my hon. Friend is. He is not the leader of the British parliament delegation. He is the leader of the Conservative Party's delegation to the European Parliament. I think that explains why the Government have so far not thought it right to adopt this policy. But of course as and when—I am quite certain that it is only a matter of time—the Opposition join in sending Members to the European Parliament, that will be the time for us to consider a further motion on this subject.
The hon. Gentleman has described the European Parliament as a farce or a menace. He probably thinks it is both, although I am not quite certain which he thinks is the more evil of those two descriptions. My own view—I think it is the view of many people—is that our delegation has played a very active part in helping the European Parliament over the last few months. I am certain that it is already a far better Parliament as a result of their presence there. I think it will be an even better Parliament when the Labour Party comes to its sense and sends its own Members.
The hon. Member for Brixton said that the debate had demonstrated what a difficult position the House and the Government are in. All I can tell him


is that, from all I have heard tonight, it is in nothing like such a difficult position as his own party is in on this matter.
I believe that in one respect the House tonight has shown itself to be a proper and good watchdog of the way the Government spend their money. On the other hand, it has shown itself to be in a pretty mean mood. My own hope is that the meanness shown by some hon.

Division No. 146.]
AYES
[12.14 a.m.


Atkins, Humphrey
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Carlisle, Mark
Le Merchant, Spencer
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chapman, Sydney
Maddan, Martin
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Money, Ernle
Shersby, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Murton, Oscar
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cooke, Robert
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Crouch, David
Normanton, Tom
Tope, Graham


Eyre, Reginald
Nott, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Fortescue, Tim
Osborn, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fox, Marcus
Pounder, Rafton
Winterton, Nicholas


Gray, Hamish
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Woodnutt, Mark


Haselhurst, Alan
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis



Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk S.)
Redmond, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


James, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Kirk, Peter






NOES



NIL




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Michael English and Mr. Arthur Lewis.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House and following the resolution come to by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on 20th March and contained in the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee ordered by the House to be printed on 17th April (H.C. 69-ii), supporting services broadly equivalent to those provided for the delegations of other member nations should be made available from the beginning of this financial year to Members of this House and of the House of Lords who arc members of the European Parliament for the purpose of attending meetings of the European Parliament and of its Committees.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

MERCIA BUILDING SOCIETY

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for the chance of raising this issue on the Adjournment because the situation is causing concern to some of my constituents.

Members in their remarks tonight will not be taken too much to heart by my hon. Friends who are doing a very difficult job in Strasbourg, and that we shall pass this motion with the best wishes of certainly all the Members on this side of the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 0.

Some years ago people took out mortgages with the Mercia Building Society and in the agreements they signed at that time there was a clause which said specifically that the interest rate should not be increased beyond the rate of 9 per cent. per annum. In other words, the Mercia Building Society was giving its word in writing, so far as those mortgages were concerned, that there would be a 9 per cent. ceiling.

I understand that before the war many building societies had some such clause in their agreements. However, since the war this has been dropped and few, if any, building societies, apart from the Mercia, give this undertaking. I cannot understand why the Mercia Building Society has continued with such a clause, unless it is a sales gimmick to people seeking a mortgage and wanting the assurance that the interest rates payable will never rise above a fixed ceiling.

In March this year some constituents of mine received a document from the society which said:
In view of the expected recommendation by the Council of the Building Societies


Association to increase the rate of mortgage interest, and the probability that the new rate will be in excess of 9 per cent. per annum, I am writing to inform you that your Board of Directors have reviewed the interest charged on your mortgage. In your legal charge it states that the maximum rate chargeable should be 9 per cent., and as this is now an uneconomic rate the Society, regretfully, has no alternative but to serve six months' notice on you to repay all moneys secured by the legal charge. In practice, if you do not wish or you are unable to repay the outstanding mortgage the Society is prepared by way of a deed of variation to vary the terms of your present mortgage so that the rate decided by the Directors may be charged from 1st October 1973. The deed of variation will be prepared in this office to avoid any legal costs. Your Directors did not make this decision lightly, because they realise the concern that the proposed action will cause, but, in view of the economic climate in the country, they were faced with no alternative.
I must therefore request you to let me know, at your earliest convenience, which of the two alternatives you propose adopting.

In other words, the society was telling those people that within six months they should pay off the money they owed and that if they could not do so there would have to be a variation in the mortgage agreement.

On 12th April the Express and Star published a statement from me, along with a reply from the manager of the society. The report said:
An urgent Government probe into allegations that a West Midland building society has been guilty of ' sharp practice' over interest rates was called for by an MP today. Mr. Fergus Montgomery, Tory MP for Brierley Hill, has taken up with Environment Secretary, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon complaints against the Mercia Building Society, which, was formerly the Wednesbury Building Society.
Borrowers are seething with anger at a decision by the society to raise interest rates above an agreed nine per cent. ceiling.
The nine per cent. ceiling was provided in a clause when the mortgages were taken out.
Mr. Montgomery said: 'This clause was used as a sales point to assure customers that in the unlikely event—at that time—that mortgage rates should go over nine per cent. customers should not be required to pay more.
The society has now written to people who have mortgages with them saying that this agreement should now be declared void and that the rate of interest should be changed as from October 1st 1973.'
Mr. J. Pollard, manager of the Mercia Building Society, said today: 'The notices I sent out did not in themselves increase the rate of interest to any member.

It was a step to enable an increase to be made in the light of the current situation. Any increase to be made will be no greater than that of other borrowing members of the society and will be in line with the rate recommended by the Building Societies Association.
The step taken is not, as has been suggested, a breach of contract, but an exercise of a power contained in the mortgage deed. Neither was the ceiling of 9 per cent. a sales gimmick.'

The vital words are:
The step taken is not, as has been suggested, a breach of contract, but an exercise of a power contained in the mortgage deed. Neither was the ceiling of 9 per cent. a sales gimmick.

We all know that building societies have the power to call in mortgages at any time. That is a right of every building society in the country. Where I take issue with the society is on its failure to give any reason why a 9 per cent. ceiling was ever written into the agreement. The society gave a solemn undertaking to people, and it seems that it is now going back on its word.

It is not the first time the society has been faced with this situation. I am told that some years ago there were people who had 8 per cent. ceilings written into their mortgage agreements. Those mortgages were called in and higher interest rates were charged. There seems to have been little outcry from those concerned then. No doubt the people who run the society today are surprised at the anger that has greeted their action on this occasion.

It would be interesting if my hon. Friend the Minister of State could tell us how many other mortgagors there are with the Mercia Building Society with interest rate ceilings of 10 per cent. and perhaps higher. If it is true that the society is still giving mortgages with a ceiling of interest stipulated in the agreements, it is time it stopped making agreements that it either will not or cannot keep.

The society issued a statement to the Express and Star, which reported on 28th April:
A West Midlands building society has hit back at an MP's reference to ' sharp practice' over interest rates.
The reference was made by Mr. Fergus Montgomery, Tory MP for Brierley Hill, after a row involving the Mercia Building Society, formerly the Wednesbury Building Society.


In a statement issued today, Mercia said: 'Some members may have been occasioned anxiety by the implication that the society's action was not authorised by the deed or mortgage contract.
It is. This fact could, and would, have been established to Mr. Montgomery had he contacted the society. Unfortunately, he did not do so.'
Mr. Montgomery called for an urgent Government probe into the society's move to raise mortgage rates to more than 9 per cent, after borrowers had claimed that a clause in their contracts provided a 9 per cent ceiling.
The Mercia statement added: No communication has been received from any Government department, probably because, as a spokesman for the Building Societies Association put it, the society was well within its rights to take the measures it had taken.'

There is no mention in that statement of why the clause stipulating a ceiling of 9 per cent. had been included.

We all realise how building societies work. We realise that they have to pay competitive rates of interest to depositors to attract money to make loans to would-be home buyers.

The reason why I did not contact the Mercia Building Society was that the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) had already done so. He had shown me a reply which he received from the Mercia Building Society dated 6th April 1973. The letter stated:
I thank you for your letter of the 4th instant regarding my letter sent to Mr. and Mrs. Ward of 56 Bagnall Street, Ocker Hill, in which I stated that in view of the expected rise in interest rates the Society had no option but to request repayment of the loan after the expiration of six months or Mr. and Mrs. Ward could sign a deed of variation so that the terms of the mortgage could be varied. I wish to stress that I did not at that time say that interest rates would be increased, but that I expected such an increase, and from an item in the Express &amp; Star on Monday last you appeared to be under the impression that I had increased the mortgage rate.
The reasons for Building Societies increasing their interest rates is because of the shortage of funds. caused by higher interest rates being offered by other bodies. Joint stock banks arc now in competition with us for savings on their deposit accounts; local authorities are offering a higher gross interest rate than Societies. In the recent Budget the Chancellor announced a new issue of Government stock at 9½ per cent. with a bonus at maturity, plus increasing the amount of National Savings Certificates, and this action I feel was the last straw.

I am sure that I express the views of most building society managers when I say that our aim is to serve the public. …

In other words, the general manager of the Mercia Building Society was passing the buck and blaming the Government. He must be unbelievably naïve to have written such a letter.

The shortage of funds at that time was due, as most people were aware, to the withdrawals from building societies because of the consumer boom which was taking place before VAT came into force on 1st April. Most of us realise the concern that building societies felt about the Chancellor's decision to make national savings more attractive. In fact, their fears and anxieties have not been borne out. The situation today is that money is pouring into the building societies. Therefore, the hasty action taken by the Mercia Building Society may not be justified in a few months' time.

While legally the society may be right, morally it is completely wrong. I deplore the ham-fisted way in which it has handled the whole business and its failure to abide by a bargain which has been struck. If any of the mortgagors who are concerned with the present dispute had broken their bargain with the society, I suggest that the society would have been very quick to take the necessary action. When is a bargain not a bargain? I suggest that is when a bargain is struck with the Mercia Building Society.

The society has done a great deal of harm to the reputation of building societies. To use a phrase used not so long ago in another connection by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, this is another instance of
the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 1243.]

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give some guidance as to ways in which mortgagors can be aided.

12.34 a.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): As my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) knows, the activities of the building societies are governed by the Building Societies Act 1962. That is a comprehensive measure which, broadly speaking, is intended to regulate the interests of the societies' borrowers and


investors. It deals with such matters as the incorporation of societies, their powers, the duties of directors, annual accounts and notice of meetings. The Act also sets out the powers of control of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies over building societies.
The Chief Registrar has the power, among other things, to suspend building societies' borrowing from the public if he thinks it is in the investors' interests and to control building societies' advertisements. He also has the duty to lay an annual report before Parliament. His consent is necessary under certain sections of the Act—for example, before a building society can lend money to another building society. However, the Act does not give the Chief Registrar powers to prevent building societies from calling in a mortgage or from raising the interest rate payable on mortgages. It is only right to mention initially just what the powers of the Chief Registrar are under the existing law.
Building societies normally grant mortgages for a specified period, with the borrower paying interest and repaying capital in monthly instalments. It is his normal expectation that his mortgage will be allowed to run the full period. However, mortgage deeds used by building societies and other mortgages often provide a power to call in the mortgage at, say, six months' notice. This is the clause which was in the deeds to which my hon. Friend has referred. Virtually all mortgages granted nowadays by building societies include a provision to permit the societies to vary the rate of interest charged on a mortgage. This has not always been the case. It was common for mortgages arranged in the immediate post-war period to be at a fixed rate of interest.
If societies wanted to increase a fixed interest rate, their normal practice was to call in the mortgage and then, as it were, reissue it at a higher rate of interest. The Mercia Building Society is, in the way it is currently behaving, following that kind of practice. This is clearly a cumbersome procedure, and this was one reason for the introduction of the present system whereby building societies have power to vary mortgage rates at their option.
Besides fully variable and fixed rate mortgages, a number of building societies have mortgages under which they are empowered to alter mortgage rates within specified limits, and the Mercia society is one of the small number of societies which still have this kind of mortgage outstanding. There are not many of them and the total involved is relatively small beside the approximately 4 million or so of all building society mortgages outstanding. I understand that most if not all building society mortgages nowadays are of the fully variable interest rate type.
My hon. Friend asked me to comment upon other maximum rate mortgages which he believes the Mercia society might have issued recently. The information available to me—but I will look further into the point—is that the society issued mortgages with a limit of 9 per cent. until 1967 and then until January 1969 issued mortgages with a limit of 10 per cent. My information—but I will check further since my hon. Friend said that mortgages have been issued quite recently with this kind of provision—is that no mortgages with a fixed limit have been issued by the society since January 1969. It may be that my hon. Friend has drawn an important piece of information to my attention and I will check it.
The burden of complaint against the Mercia society, which my hon. Friend clearly set out, is that many of the society's mortgage deeds state that the maximum rate of interest chargeable is 9 per cent. But I understand that the society has decided that this is an uneconomic rate and has served six months' notice with mortgagors to repay their mortgages in accordance with the provision in the mortgage deed. Alternatively, if the mortgagors concerned do not wish or are unable to repay the outstanding mortgage, the society has given them the option to vary the terms of their present mortgage by way of a deed of variation so that from 1st October 1973 the mortgage rate charged will be decided by the society's directors. But the society has made it clear that it is prepared to draw up the deed of variation so as to avoid legal costs for mortgagors.
My hon. Friend's constituents clearly believe that they have been hard done by. I have read the letter which the society has sent to mortgagors. I can quite see


that it must appear to them that the society has voluntarily set itself a limit within which to vary the interest rate and now has decided to call in the mortgage because of a change in circumstances. This is obviously causing great concern to my hon. Friend's constituents. I can understand their feelings.
I have to point out that because of its responsibilities to its mortgagors any building society has to bear in mind also its responsibilities to its investors. The House will be aware that although savings deposited in building societies can be withdrawn at quite short notice, the societies customarily advance money on long term, often for 20 years or more. To borrow short and lend long in this way, a society must retain its flexibility over a course of time to keep its investment rate in line with the rate paid by its competitors. Otherwise a society will find that it is losing its funds and in the long run this could result in serious embarrassment for borrowers as well as investors with the society. Unless a society increases its mortgage rate commensurate with its investment rate, it will operate at a loss. This is clearly something which no responsible building society could tolerate.

Mr. Montgomery: The crux of the matter is that this building society gave a guarantee to these people. I have already explained that it previously gave another at about 8 per cent. It obviously found this was wrong. Why is it continuing with a ceiling interest rate? In his investigations, did my hon. Friend get any explanation why the society has continued to do this? We have had no explanation in the Midlands from the Mercia Building Society.

Mr. Nott: My information was that these maximum rate interest mortgages had ceased being issued by this building society in 1969. If the Mercia Building Society is still issuing that type of mortgage, I will look into it and consider the matter. I certainly give that undertaking. When I came here tonight I was not aware that any maximum rate interest mortgages had been issued by the society since 1969. I will check this point.
My hon. Friend's constituents clearly feel aggrieved by what they regard as the high-handed attitude of the society con-

cerned. There is, no doubt, room for argument about the manner in which the society confronted its members with the proposition it put to them. I have read the letter and I think it could have been more appropriately worded.
But on the other hand, as I have pointed out, any building society must have regard to the general position of interest rates and take steps to retain its funds while at the same time striking a balance between the interests of its investors and borrowers, The Government have no powers to intervene in this dispute between the society and its mortgagors and I am sure that the problem can be resolved only by the parties concerned.
I understand that there was a meeting between representatives of the mortgagors and the building society tonight. I have not heard what happened at that meeting. My understanding of the latest position—this information comes to me from a Press release to the local Press issued on 9th June—is that the Mercia Building Society has made certain suggestions which were contained in the Press release, in which it says that the minority of the borrowers who have not already accepted the Mercia's proposals are invited to do so on the basis that the interest rate will be increased to 9 per cent. on 1st October but no further before 1st April 1974. This is the proposal which I understand has been made by the society to a group of those who are complaining about its actions. I very much hope that out of these meetings some satisfactory compromise arrangement will arise.
I fully appreciate the concern which has been expressed by my hon. Friend's constituents and which he has echoed, and I sympathise with the people concerned. But the Government have no statutory powers to intervene in this dispute and in the last resort I am afraid that there is only a legal remedy which is open to the mortgagors themselves. I naturally hope that some reasonable compromise can be arrived at between the building society and the mortgagors as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to One o'clock.